Daily Archives: April 21, 2013

“Catholic Answers” Has Lost The Plot

Catholic…. What?

Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past – but repetita iuvant – they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an “ask an Apologist” question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like “good suicides to go heaven” and the like.

Today, out of sheer boredom, I clicked the page once again, to see what’s going on. I use “predestination” as search item and find a couple of threads that make your blood curl, with the usual sensitive posters (they are generally women; further proof God is rightly spoken of in the masculine) clumsily trying to avoid hard truths and tapping in the dark about what they “feel”, or “imagine” rather than doing what sensible people would do, that is: read a couple of sensible books first, and in case find a very good (means: not a wishy-washy V II one) priest later.

Still, this is a difficult issue: predestination is probably the most inextricable mystery of Christianity, up there with the Trinity, and a degree of confusion is normal, though once again a good book or a good theologian is vastly better than trying to concoct a solution among blog commenters.

Then I went on the “ask an apologist” section, where in the past I generally – but not always – found sound “Catholic answers”. The first (and only) post I read was this one.

In short, a woman has a perverted sister who “married” (not!) and her husband – one is glad there are true men around still – says to her wife the perverted woman is not to set foot in the house again. Not when he himself is there – obviously – and not when he is not there too – also obviously; then it’s a matter of principle, not of presence -.

The wife writes to “dear Abby”, and what do you think the “apologist” answers? Something along the lines of “he has no right to give you orders, you are his accomplice with your submissive behaviour, I suggest you speak to a marriage counsellor; with your husband if you can but alone if you must”.

What is this, a Catholic Forum or Cosmopolitan’s letters to the editor? To suggest that a third person be put between man and wife? After the head of the family (read my lips: head-of-the-family) has taken a perfectly reasonable decision about the scandalous reprobate he does not want to have in the house he (read my lips again: he) has the duty to lead? Really? What do these people think a marriage is, a democracy? There are Christian rules about how a marriage works; Christians have applied them for 2000 years with great success; it appears for “women’s liberation theologians” isn’t good enough.

For heaven’s sake, it’s not like the husband is alcoholic, or violent, or a lazy good-for-nothing married in a moment of Samaritan excesses (some women have that; though I think low self-esteem plays a far bigger role). This is a perfectly sensible, reasonable man confronted with the smoke of Satan wanting to enter his home, and he takes a perfectly reasonable decision about how he, the person responsible for the spiritual welfare of the family, is to deal with that.

Or do you think the feminist “apologist” would remind the wife that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the husband? A wife with the blessing of a man who knows he will have to answer to Jesus about the way he led his wife, and takes responsibility for it, has been graced with a good husband indeed! But that third parties would come to the extent of suggesting another person is put in the middle is really beyond belief.

Tra moglie e marito non mettere il dito (“do not put your finger between a husband and a wife”), says the wise Italian. The Catholic Answers apologist puts an entire counsellor. What a feminist nutcase.

This so-called “apologist” needs a very good rapping before she is kicked out, and I truly hope she is never allowed to instruct Catholic women preparing for marriage. She should also be informed that even today, even today such an outlandish “answer” (all, but a Catholic one) would be considered the answer of a feminist bitch by every sensible woman living in traditional Catholic countries, where – I can assure you from endless, and continued experience – this “let’s put a third person in our controversy” mentality is just not there, and would be considered the result of an acute bitchiness attack and controlling mania.

I do not need to mention here – because every woman with some brains knows it; apparently not the case by some female “apologists” – that women perfectly well know how to deal with disagreements within the family; and have far more effective (as in: smartly feminine) ways to influence their men, insofar as it can be done, or the intelligence to let it be, when it’s clear it cannot.

I am truly stunned. Where I come from, the answer to disagreements is never “put a counsellor in the middle”, but along the lines of “he is the man you wanted to marry: now let it work” or “try to change his mind if you can, with sweetness and prayer and patience; and accept his decision if you can’t, because this the way it goes”. Apparently, it’s now the counsellors who run Catholic families. Pathetic, and so stupid.

I really must say it, but if this flippin’ American mentality has infiltrated the minds to the point where such rubbish is even suggested in a Catholic Forum, by a so-called apologist, you in the old U S of A are in a very, very bad shape indeed.

Catholic Answers might well be the most clicked Catholic site on the planet. The damage they make with their blasted “American Feminist” mentality can hardly be overestimated. These people do not even know what makes a real woman, but they spread their rubbish on the Internet on how to run – or to break – a marriage.

I was always surprised when I left Italy and these colleague in Germany told me “Italian women are so feminine!”. Why, of course they are, thought I. They’re women, aren’t they…

I began to understand, later, what was meant by it, and it seems to me the problem is not limited to Germany.

Fight against feminism and bitchiness, even when it is in disguise of “Catholicism”. If you want to see real women in their environment, try to spend some months in a traditional Catholic country and see how those among them who have been properly raised – still the vast majority, even today! – live, embrace and enjoy their womanhood.

They live far happier lives, too.


Is Cardinal Schoenborn Homosexual?

Is it fair to say this is a Duck? Read on...

Is it fair to say this is a Duck? Read on…


First an appeal to the SSPX, if they were ever to read this: can you please stop referring to homosexuals, lesbians, & Co. as “gay”? If even the SSPX starts using this sloppy language, where will it end?

Quit saying “gay”.


On the matter: once again, Cardinal Schoenborn (a man recently considered as papabile, which tells you something about the present state of things within the Church) shows himself a rather extreme aider and abettor of homosexual perversion.

The SSPX goes in detail on this, also giving a rather comprehensive account of a small part of the antics of this satanic Cardinal in the last years. 

In this specific instance, the Cardinal is on record with the following:

There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life.

(EDIT: The Cardinal’s Secretary denies these were the words or the intention of the Cardinal: see below).

The Cardinal thinks that sexual perversion: 1) needs respect, and 2) needs civil law protection. Spoken like a true sodomite.

If a Cardinal would publicly declare that bestiality needs respect and civil law protection, but just please don’t call it marriage, wouldn’t you think he has that very perversion? Well, then.. 

Therefore, the suspicion is more than justified that the Cardinal is a homosexual himself, because such a level of defiance of God’s laws – in every priest, but particularly in a Cardinal – is probably rooted in an inner disobedience born of one’s own perversion.  In these cases, some might still have the gut to do their job even if they themselves do not comply with the required standard – Cardinal O’Brien comes to mind – but it is fair to say it is far more likely that perverted clergymen will rather try to subvert the standard instead. In doing so, they will use the usual code words employed by homosexual priests during the past decades: the need to be pastoral, the “charitee”, and such like; proving that most perverts have no idea of what being pastoral, or being charitable, means in the first place.

You can put it in another way: it is difficult to think a normal person can arrive to such level of complicity with perverts, unless he is a pervert himself. Life is a very simple thing, and what would have caused alarm bells to toll in every sensible person only two generations ago is now more difficult to detect, because the aggressive (actually: passive-aggressive) clericalism engendered by Vatican II makes it far more difficult for sound thinking people to pose the obvious question, “is the Cardinal a poof?”, without being accusing of being “uncharitable”.

Also please think this: there has been a widespread talk about the homosexual infiltration within the Church, up to the highest echelons. The effeminacy of the V II Church is more than evident to anyone who can compare the pre-V II and post-V II attitude. The takeover of entire seminaries through perverted priests, in turn co-opting perverted seminarians, is well documented (Maynooth was rather extreme; St. Poelten was even worse), and it is simply not possible that this is turn did not create a net of homosexual bishops, helping each other to positions of power.

This is universally known, and the problem of homosexual infiltration is widely acknowledged. Still, it would seem these homosexual prelates exist only in an abstract sphere, or are acknowledged only a posteriori,  when they get officially exposed (“Miami Vice” is a prime example; see also here for more information on what happened over there). In daily life, it seems most people think these homosexual prelates are just non-existent.

It’s just like Fascists in Italy in May 1945: everyone knew they were there, only no one was supposed to be a Fascist…

You know what? It just can’t be. The net of homosexual bishops is working for Satan as we speak. They further the infiltration of the church through both homosexual clergy and homosexual ideas; they pollute Catholicism every day with their sugary talk about “pastoral care”; they want their sheep to forget the very bases of Christianity; they are creating a new religion in which their own perversion is fully accepted through the simple trick of not calling it “marriage”; they pervert the mind of their sheep by inoculating in them concepts of “love” and “commitment” that can only exist in the mind of perverts. They exploit their position of authority to smuggle ideas that would never be accepted by simple – and gullible – Catholics if they did not come from bishops or Cardinals. They are a cancer that is going into metastasis, working hand in hand with the civil authorities of many Western Countries. 

Do you think these people exist only in theory? No, they exist in practice. We see them at work. Look at Cardinal Schoenborn, and you’ll see a prime example.

Aristotle famously said that if an animal looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

Cardinal Schoenborn thinks like a poof, acts like a poof and quacks like a poof.

These people must be stopped, and I do not think giving First Holy Communion to children in Roman parishes is what is going to stop them.


EDIT: Cardinal Schoenborn’s secretary has written to the Tablet stating the Tablet has “grossly misinterpreted” the Cardinal’s words. Strangely, though, what he does is simply rephrase the words, which in the original text were clearly attributable to him.

My comment: the Cardinal wanted his words to be “non attributable” ( a common trick when one wants to throw the stone and hide the hand). The Tablet was too weak with their expression “leading Cardinal”, which clearly referred to Schoenborn, instead of using the usual expressions like “highly placed officials have expressed to the Tablet the opinion that…”. As it was, everyone, starting from the SSPX and the Vatican, understood who is the culprit. At this point Schoenborn had to backpedal with another common excuse (“gross misunderstanding”), which to me is code for “I said “non attributable”, morons”.

I gladly link to the letter from Mr Prueller, but I do think the excuse does not wash. In my eyes, Schoenborn still quacks like the duck above. As to Schoenborn’s record in matters of homosexuality, it is clear enough without any need for unwanted attributions, and doesn’t change anything substantial in the matter, apart from showing one of these days Schoenborn will, if he does not pay attention, put himself in huge trouble. Please also note the SSPX article, which reports several scandalous episodes concerning the Cardinal’s attitude towards homos, is still online as I write, if without the Tablet quote.

I suspect Schoenborn got some unexpected flak from the Vatican, and decided to discover orthodoxy – for the time being – through his secretary.

As far as I am concerned the post, the duck, and the suspicions stay.


Dies Natalis Romae Invictae

Fasces_lictoriae.svgToday is the 21 April, Dies Natalis Romae Invictae.

Sensible Italians remember today the birth of the second most astonishing phenomenon ever appeared under the Sky (after Jesus and His Church, of course).

The Catholics among the sensible Italians will also know that the First Rome was the instrument chosen by God for the development and spreading of the Second Rome.

As a born Roman, Civis Romanus, I allow myself to feel particularly proud today. Not my merit, I know. But proud nevertheless.

As image for this blog post I have chosen a most impressive symbol of Roman might: the Fasces. As you can see from the image, it was made out of many small rods, all bundled together to form a thick cylinder. This cylinder was then so strong it could be used as support for a weapon, generally an axe.

The first and most cited symbolic meaning of the Fasces is brutally evident: each one as an individual is small; but when put together in close collaboration, the group will be an indestructible, lethal weapon.

Most of my readers are, of course, not born Romans.

How will they celebrate today, then?

I suggest a beautiful way how we can, simple rods as we are, unite in this Spring Sunday in a powerful Catholic Fasces:

Dump Starbucks.


Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Homosexual Priests* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)

The Homosexual Priest Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

Hat tip to Rorate Caeli for this beautiful, beautiful article about the liturgical impact of homosexuality in the priesthood appeared in the CNA.

Some quotations:

[…] more and more Catholics are coming to the unavoidable conclusion (contrary to “official findings”) that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases were directly related to homosexuality

One may further deduce that the historical spike in such incidents also likely coincided with an increase in the relative number of homosexual men in the priesthood – a proposition too unsavory (not to mention too politically incorrect) for many to acknowledge

Those who are willing to look at the situation with eyes opened wide are left to ponder, not just the aforementioned abuse crisis, but also the broader implications of homosexuality in the priesthood.

It follows an exam of the various way in which a homosexual priest is, ipso facto, unfit for the habit from the liturgical

View original post 773 more words

%d bloggers like this: