Monthly Archives: May 2013

Senseless Blindness


One of the two men who savagely butchered Lee Rigby in Woolwich (yours truly has reported) made a first appearance in court today. In an astonishing show of the level of stupidity now reigning among us, even the newspapers call him “suspect”. There is, in fact, the suspicion that the two men who remained near the man they had just butchered, inviting passers-by to take videos of their feat, might be involved in the fact; but we don’t know, of course. We merely suspect it.

This utter failing of common sense and sane judgment instantly reminded me of another phenomenon familiar to all Catholics: the near-inevitability of salvation. I wonder how many would dare to say today that a sane person shooting himself in the head without one of those very rare, extenuating circumstances to do so (say: the general who knows he will be tortured and executed after his imminent capture) has shot himself to hell with an extremely high degree of probability. Perhaps, they reason, in the time between the pulling of the trigger and the bullet entering his head, whilst the bullet was in full charge towards its aim, the man repented of his act, saying to himself “oh shoot, I shouldn’t have done this! Forgive me, Blessed Virgin!”.

Several examples can be made that are not dissimilar from this one, and you have certainly heard yours. No sane person can make a bomb of himself, and therefore if he does he must not be considered evil, merely confused. Infidels of all kind “love God”, so they must be fine, must they not? Even atheists who “do good” are, we are given to understand, very well placed.

So, who remains? Those who do good are saved because they do good; those who do evil are saved because they don’t know what they do; in the middle there’s no one (Hitler perhaps; or George W Bush) because hey, everyone loves his dog.

Which leads us nicely to the starting point: blindness. The same blindness making us even unable to call day light butchers boasting of their inhuman cruelty “suspects” of what they have done.

If the two claim they’re innocent, this trial will become very strange indeed.

Be assured the trial of the one who, knowing what he does, shoots himself isn’t.



The Emancipated Pope

Clearly not emancipated: Pope St Pius X

Whilst it is very sad to have to comment again and again on the Pope’s words, I think it is worth doing, because the careless words of the Holy Father have become such a common occurrence that without any reaction we will drown in a tidal wave of novel thinking without even noticing.

in the times of the young Roman republic, marriages were made with the two family clans meeting very publicly in two groups standing in front of each other, and the pater familias (the head of the clan) of the bridegroom’s family again very publicly physically seizing the girl from her side and bringing her to his family’s side. The lack of reaction of the bride’s side was meant to show to the community the seizing happened with their consent. This “taking with the hand”, in Latin manu capere, became in time known as mancipio, that is, the taking of a person under the authority and dominion of another person.

Conversely, to be freed from another’s authority or dominion (to “take away from the hand”, ex manu capere) became in time known as emancipatio.

Therefore, a man (or woman) says to his day that he is emancipated, or has emancipated himself, to signify that he is not subject anymore to some authority of the past.

Exactly this is the meaning of the Pope’s words, who gave Monsignor Marini a true Judas’ kiss by saying that he decided to keep him – notwithstanding the suggestions of some – in order for the old to coexist with the new; though he, Francis, is, rather, emancipated in his liturgical vision.

It astonishes me that so many commenters would see and report the Pope’s words as good news. On the contrary, the Pontiff’s very choice of this word – emancipation – shows an ill-concealed contempt for the Mass of the Ages, seen as the dominion and authority of an old way of thinking from which he, the Pope, has freed himself.

The words of appreciation for Monsignor Marini, and the vague references to the old being also, in some way, worthy of existence are of little consolation, when the Pontiff in the same breath so bluntly shows his liturgical colours. I have difficulties in imagining even Paul VI of disastrous memory express himself in such a way, though undoubtedly the thinking was pretty much the same. Much less can I imagine Pope Benedict expressing himself thus during his reign.

You might say that this was a spontaneous, careless remark, to which we should not attach undue importance. I reply that it is exactly this kind of spontaneous talk that best reveals how a man thinks. Let us say it once again: the Pontiff considers the Traditional Mass the expression of an old liturgical thinking, from whose dominion and authority he has freed himself. The Pinocchio Masses, the puppets moving around, the crucifixes where Christ seems to be on holiday: this is his way of understanding the liturgy.

Nor there is any indication that having Marini near him will do much good. The Trinity Sunday Mass just celebrated is, if you allow the neologism, as Un-Marinian as they come, bar the Pinocchio & Co. Make no mistake, as Pope Francis “feels” himself into his new role his Masses will become worse, not better.

So there we are, with a Pope proclaiming his “emancipation” from, erm, pretty much the entire liturgical history of the Church whilst, ever the Jesuit, paying some lip service to it. He might not attack the TLM openly, because he does not seem sufficiently interested in such a fight and because an open confrontation on such heavy matters would expose his limitations in liturgical matters at the very least, leaving aside that modern Jesuits aren’t the born warriors anyway; but the hostility is clearly there in the thinking, if not yet openly in the acting.

Whence the end of such a liturgical – and not only liturgical – misery may come is beyond what I can rationally think. Expect Pope Francis’ appointments of bishops and cardinals to have pretty much the same quality as his liturgy, with the results we can easily imagine.

The only way out I can see is the Holy Ghost coming to our help and either radically changing this Pope’s ways, or providing for a big surprise when the time or the next conclave comes. It is true that the Cardinals, and not the Holy Ghost, elect the Pope, but it is also true that when the appointed time comes the Holy Ghost can move them in secret ways to pave the way for one reversing the current situation of fast degradation of Catholic patrimony, including but not limited to liturgical matters. Pope Bergoglio certainly won’t improve the average quality of a college of cardinals already able to elect him, so there you are…

I will not hold my breath waiting for improvements. My impression is that the Church is being punished, and there is no saying when this will end. A noted theologian – who then became Pope – wisely remarked that when the Bride behaved particularly badly, the Bridegroom disciplined Her with some dire affliction. The Great Schism in 1054, the heresies of the XVI Century, perhaps also the temporary obliteration of the Catholic Church from a very secularised France in the wake of the French Revolution can be seen as examples of this.

We are being punished. The utter madness of the “springtime of the Church” triggered the present decay; both in an earthly, practical, causal way and in a more general way, as Divine Punishment as just consequence of the arrogance of clergy – and countless followers – thinking they could reinvent Catholicism and make it sexy, easy, popular, and outright comfortable.

We are being punished, and deservedly so. Not for the first time in the history of the Church, or the last.

When one live in times of “emancipated” Popes, the only way is to cling the more firmly to the received Truth, and renew one’s efforts of prayer.

In your charity, pray for the Pontiff, too.


Indulgences, the deal of your life.

Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

Dear reader, if you are a non-Catholic you have probably heard a lot of nonsense about indulgences and if you are a cradle Catholic you might not have heard anything at all. I will try here to give you some compact information about what Indulgences are and why they are so important in the life of a Catholic. If you want more detailed information you’ll find it here.

To understand the indulgences you must realise that sins demand – even after they have been forgiven – a temporal punishment. When the sin was forgiven the soul was cleansed, but the necessity for the punishment remained. You can make a parallel with everyday life by thinking that if by parking on the street you damage your neighbour’s car, you or your insurance will be expected to pay for the damage even after your neighbour has wholeheartedly accepted your excuses.

View original post 677 more words

Summorum Pontificum: The New Archbishop Of Ferrara Does Not Mince Words

God might be Italian: The Cathedral in Ferrara

The Cathedral in Ferrara

If you click at Father Z’s blog, you will find a wonderful sermon from the Archbishop of Ferrara, Luigi Negri.

It is as blunt as an Italian Archbishop can ever be; the remark with the ecclesiastical tribunal is very telling.

We do not know whether the “Franciscan simplicity” will impact the Traditional Mass, but this is one Archbishop on the right side.

As an aside, you could do worse than considering Ferrara in your next Italian holiday. One of the most beautiful places on earth (think Siena without the hills), Ferrara with his huge historic centre (it was probably the biggest city in Europe at the beginning of the XVI Century) will leave you speechless and breathless.

A city blessed with so much beauty is now also blessed with a staunch and very blunt defender of the Traditional Mass.




Pope Francis And The Confused Mind.

The more I read him, the more I am persuaded that we are punished with a Pope that doesn’t know very much what he thinks, but seems determined to say it anyway.

Things have come to such a level of confusion and embarrassment, that most recently a Vatican spokesman, Father Rosica, had to clean some of Francis’ mess, and to say very clear those who die in their atheism will go to hell.

Obvious, you will say. Christianity 101. Every child of six knows it. Well, apparently some doubts about whether the Pope’s understanding of Christianity is as good as a five years’ old are justified enough to force Father Rosica to intervene. The brutal fact is that the Holy Father expresses himself in such a confused way you never know whether the problem is in his utter inability to express himself properly – which should be reason enough not to improvise – or, more worryingly, in his inability to think soundly.

Recently, the Pope told us that Christ died even for atheist, which in itself is true: antecedently, Jesus died for everyone; but this does not mean everyone is saved, then subsequently Jesus saves some and condemns others. Therefore, Jesus died for the atheist doesn’t mean those who die in their atheism escape hell. To think so would mean to completely reinvent Christianity, transforming it in a sugary new age cult in which not even believing Jesus is our Saviour is necessary to save us.

“Do good”, says the Pope to the atheist, after talking of Salvation; “we will meet there”, and you don’t understand whether it means “we will have at least some common ground, hoping you avoid hell repenting of your atheism by the efficacious grace of God”, or whether he means “we will meet in Paradise, because don’t you know, nowadays works without faith suffice for salvation”; which last is, I assure you, just the way it sounds and can’t be what the Pope meant merely because the scale of heresy would be too much even for a South American Jesuit, much less a Pope.

So much so, in fact, that Father Rosica had to intervene and explain to the atheists – the Christians already know – what is what. Now when someone is forced to explain the very first truths of Christianity because as the Pope explains them they seem the opposite, you know a Jesuit was made Pope.

It is difficult to know what goes on into the mind of this man. I have always been of the opinion that when people think clearly, they speak clearly and, conversely, when they are confused in the way they talk is because they are rather confused in the way they think. “Chi parla male, pensa male”: he who talks badly, thinks badly. I do not think the Holy Father should be an exception, because he isn’t an illiterate south American campesino.

My impression of the Pontiff after reading the excerpts of a couple of dozen homilies of his – which is a lot to understand how a man thinks – is that this is a man not in possession of clear thinking, possibly never formed correctly in the first place, and constantly oscillating between the will to talk straight and the seemingly irresistible desire to please the audience and make everything “easy”, which actually means “convenient”. This is, by the by, the first mark of the Vatican II priest.

This here is also a Jesuit, meaning that to him ambiguity is a way of life. Before reading Pope Francis, you know already he will either run with the hare or hunt with the hounds, and the only uncertainty is which of the two is going to be on the day. The banality of much of what he says is the result of this way of thinking, and it won’t be long before millions discover they have to do with an intellectual Pygmy.

This isn’t pastoral, or even decent. It sows confusion to the point of forcing his officials to explain the obvious. It can’t be right, and must be amended if the Holy Father is to avoid making an embarrassment of himself.

It would be enough to be conscious of his (obvious) limits and prepare drafts of his homilies beforehand, that he would give to someone like Father Rosica or Bishop Gaenswein to ensure they are sound; but it is very obvious the humility necessary to do so is just not there.

Unless something substantial changes, we must prepare ourselves for a very sad Papacy. I blame Pope Benedict; not for resigning, but for choosing the Cardinals who then picked, rather predictably, one like the majority of them.


Fag By Association

Read here about some of the initiative that are already being proposed to replace the Gay Scouts of America.

Predictably, other “Catholic” groups are already finding excuses not to abandon them.

This is not only profoundly cowardly, it also exposes their youth to the dangers of a world in which a pervert is accepted as such, as pervert, without anyone having to say anything other than how “inclusive” he is.

It is beyond me how a Catholic (or Christian) parent could allow his son to remain in an organisation in such frontal opposition to Christian teaching. They must be aware that their sons' membership alone will give scandal, and even if their own sons will not become sodomites themselves (which most won't; though some unavoidably will as the perverted environment allows Satan to work at ease on some troubled souls), they will probably be infected by the vicarious effeminacy so clearly seen in those who talk of their “gay friends” as if being a sodomite was a badge of honour, and at some point begin to talk, think and dress like faggots.

He who walks with the lame learns to limp, says the wise Italian, and there is no way proximity with perversion will not leave its mark in some sort of perverted thinking. Correspondingly, the wise Italian will judge people from their friends and acquaintances, well knowing that the environment one chooses will shape one to a degree. To tarnish people by association is not a matter of “prejudice”, as the stupid politically correct society would want you to believe, but of sound thinking and common sense. Besides, I wonder how many liberal parents with “gay friends” would be non-judgmental if their boy started to associate with right-wing extremists.

At some point, the Gay Scouts will clearly wither, like the Presbyterians; but as in the case of the Presbyterians, this will not happen overnight, and it is necessary for Christian parents to act now.

Keep your boy away from the Gay Scouts.

Don't make of him a fag by association.


French Lesson

Pour Le Mariage!

The French have staged another oceanic march against the abomination of so-called homosexual marriage. A march on that scale after the approval of the law is a clear indication that there are an awful lot of people who think it's time for the tough to get going. Monsieur (or I should say: Madame) Hollande is not in a good spot anyway, and he certainly doesn't need this. He might, in fact – unless the devil calls him to his HQ before the time – live to regret (and unless he repents, die to regret) what he has done.

What does the French example tell us? That whenever the perverts and their friends manage to have some legislative measure passed, we must not accept this as “a sign of the times” and resign to the new status quo, but rather start – everyone in our own little ways, and hopefully with the help of more organised structures in time – the fight against abomination now.

Abortion was taken away from the public spot for decades and considered, more or less, a given at least in vast parts of Europe, but the situation has now changed so much that even Pope Francis dares to speak against it. In the matter of Sodomarriage we must not wait for the next 40 years before reacting, but we must start reacting now. How probable success in our lifetime is, is utterly irrelevant, the all-decisive fact being that in this fight we are on Christ's side.

Which, incidentally, is also the winning one.



Searchlight Can’t See The Light

Wild Ass.

If you want to have a laugh, go on Father Ray Blake's blog and enjoy the press release sent to him about an imminent coup of the friends of Bishop Williamson, apparently ready to oust Bishop Fellay and, one must conclude, at least 80% of the Society. More, actually.

The problem with the stupid is that they can't think. If they can't think, they will publish whatever rubbish they think serves their cause, or at least gives them some notoriety; or slanders those they dislike.

These people obviously do not know how the Society is organised. If they knew, they would avoid making asses of themselves. But again, asses generally do not know they are making asses of themselves.

Enjoy the press release on Father Blake's blog.



My Dream Missal

We live in age of portable electronic devices. I can pray the Rosary on my tablet, access catechisms and countless devotions; but as I write, the 1962 Missal hasn't entered the electronic age.

This is even more striking, as the cost of a well-made 1962 Missal is certainly some obstacle to its diffusion, and the particular requirements of the paper – which must be extremely thin, but very robust – will take care these never become cheap articles.

Now let us imagine I sit in my pew, three minutes before the start of the (Traditional) Mass. What is today? Trinity Sunday. I click on the interactive, easy to access index or table of content and the mass of the day appears in front of my eyes.

I do not have to flip back and forth, as the app has arranged everything for me. I can choose whether I want my text in Latin only or with another language (English, French, & Co.) at the side. I decide whether to keep the tablet horizontal or vertical. I can even pick the type font of my choice, and the background colour. I can have a bigger text if I so prefer. I am not talking of amazing features here, merely of those I already have on other Catholic apps.

This would require extensive works of course, but the texts are all there already, and the usual publishing suspects have all prepared as I write. Such a work could be easily sold for a price that may appear high for a tablet app, but would strike one as cheap if compared with the original book; this, without considering the added advantage of tablet portability and, important, readability particularly for the elderly; plus, one would basically have his missal always with one.

The improvements and enrichments are also easy to imagine: hundreds of reproductions of sacred paintings could be inserted at the appropriate place (say: at the beginning of the Trinity Sunday Mass, a relevant masterpiece). Latin-Vernacular dictionaries could be added, & Co. Perhaps as optional modules, in collaboration with specialised publishing houses.

I can't imagine that a market would not be there, as a healthy market is already there for the expensive and less practical book product, with several choices already given to the buyer.

We shall see. The world of the tablet will not be ignored forever. When such a product come – properly made, of course – your humble correspondent will fork the money as an early adopter.



My Dream Missal

We live in age of portable electronic devices. I can pray the Rosary on my tablet, access catechisms and countless devotions; but as I write, the 1962 Missal hasn't entered the electronic age.

This is even more striking, as the cost of a well-made 1962 Missal is certainly some obstacle to its diffusion, and the particular requirements of the paper – which must be extremely thin, but very robust – will take care these never become cheap articles.

Now let us imagine I sit in my pew, three minutes before the start of the (Traditional) Mass. What is today? Trinity Sunday. I click on the interactive, easy to access index or table of content and the mass of the day appears in front of my eyes.

I do not have to flip back and forth, as the app has arranged everything for me. I can choose whether I want my text in Latin only or with another language (English, French, & Co.) at the side. I decide whether to keep the tablet horizontal or vertical. I can even pick the type font of my choice, and the background colour. I can have a bigger text if I so prefer. I am not talking of amazing features here, merely of those I already have on other Catholic apps.

This would require extensive works of course, but the texts are all there already, and the usual publishing suspects have all prepared as I write. Such a work could be easily sold for a price that may appear high for a tablet app, but would strike one as cheap if compared with the original book; this, without considering the added advantage of tablet portability and, important, readability particularly for the elderly; plus, one would basically have his missal always with one.

The improvements and enrichments are also easy to imagine: hundreds of reproductions of sacred paintings could be inserted at the appropriate place (say: at the beginning of the Trinity Sunday Mass, a relevant masterpiece). Latin-Vernacular dictionaries could be added, & Co. Perhaps as optional modules, in collaboration with specialised publishing houses.

I can't imagine that a market would not be there, as a healthy market is already there for the expensive and less practical book product, with several choices already given to the buyer.

We shall see. The world of the tablet will not be ignored forever. When such a product come – properly made, of course – your humble correspondent will fork the money as an early adopter.



What Went Wrong, From A Priest’s Mouth.

What a mess he started: Pope Blessed John XXIII

What a mess he started: Pope Blessed John XXIII

I truly believe that unless we return to the very basics in our preaching, in our school texts and in our public statements, and unless we return to a liturgy that is God-focused rather than people-centred, we will continue to see the Church dwindle by lapsation and lose influence in society. We need to be formed again, theologically and catachetically. in key issues: the Primacy of the Pope in Doctrine and Discipline; the unique nature of the Catholic Church as the One True Church from which all salvation flows; the necessity of regular Confession for regular Communion; the Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary and not simply a fraternal banquet; the inherent evil of contraception; of fornication, abortion and euthanasia. We also need to rediscover the essential vocation and responsibility of the laity as the salt of the earth wherein they set out to evangelisation of the world in its media, health care, politics, education etc. We in the clergy need to remember that we serve by taking responsibility (not power) before God for the teaching, sanctifying and governing of the Church. Collaboration does not mean shirking this responsibility.

This is an excerpt from a very good post at “Catholic Collar and Tie” (this one is from the “collar”, if you ask), where a priest reflects on what went wrong and why. His very fitting reflections conclude with another phrase I cannot avoid citing: 

In that it is the Truth which sets us free, I believe we have to return –and return soon- to forming them in doctrinal accuracy and in the understanding that Holy Mass is the worship of God in adoration, propitiation and supplication, rather than a community jamboree, which it becomes when we seek jolly songs and use skits and dramas.

The part about “who is Jesus Christ for you?” must also reflect a common problem in English school, as it is not the first time I hear of such nonsense (didn’t happen in my country and in my time, happily. We weren’t asked who Jesus is. We were told. At least that).

I suggest that you click and read the post in its entirety, and also focused on the first comment, from “Adrienne”, which truly gives a realistic picture of what is happening.

It is consoling to see that some of the younger priests “get it” and do not continue in the delusions of their older colleagues, who seem to consider the “key issues” like immaterial options that can be left out provided one has a good heart, or the like .


Beati Simplicissimi

Not very shy also in the writing of encyclical letters: Pope Pius XII, Pastor Angelicus.

Not very shy also in the writing of encyclical letters: Pope Pius XII, Pastor Angelicus.


I had to smile when I read on Rorate that Pope Francis is asking the Pontiff Emeritus to … complete the encyclical letter on Faith. I could almost hear the Pontiff says to the Emeritus, in tears, “aiutami, Benedetto!” after comparing the existing text with his own additions…

Don’t take me seriously, of course. It is normal for encyclical letters to be either written or co-written with expert theologians (when they are expert, or rather orthodox), and even a smart Pope like Pius XI asked his very own Cardinal Pacelli to write Mit Brennender Sorge. Nothing wrong or unusual per se

Still, I had to smile…

Also interesting is the other news the Pope is working at an encyclical letter on (you guessed it) poverty, hopefully and allegedly intended in the proper way. Beati pauperes is clearly being hinted as a possible name for this effort.

We shall see, but I don’t think I’ll need to read any period of this twice, or will emerge from the reading tremendously enriched.

No great risk of controversy, either. Expect rather grilled tofu on soya sauce. I do not doubt the, ahem, simplest Catholics will be delighted, and the tofu blogosphere will be utterly, utterly delighted.

We shall see, and read. I do not doubt which of the two encyclicals will make the better reading.


Intrinsically Disordered

Good Intentions



I have read around in a blog I prefer not to mention an interesting post concerning “intrinsic disorder”. Leaving aside the sugary parts (the “thoughtful debate” therein mentioned, with the perfectly meaningless conclusion that “the Church must listen to the gay community”, but also “the gay community must listen to the Church”, which is a soundbite meaning perfectly nothing) what surprised me is the analogy between gluttony and homosexuality. The very fact that such an analogy could be made is in my eyes another example of a subterranean Protestant current easily to be found in Anglo-Saxon countries, perhaps not at an explicit level (the blogger in question does not make the comparison; many of the author’s readers will), but certainly at the level of underlying mental and moral category.

To an Italian, to even think to put gluttony and homosexuality on the same plane of “intrinsic disorder” flies in the face of common sense, and means to be no more than 2.5 inches away from Protestantism.

Common sense and Christian tradition have always made a great difference between those sins that go with nature, and those sins that go against it. Gluttony is certainly a capital sin, and at some point it will become a mortal sin, too. But the desire for food is, in itself, perfectly natural, rather indispensable for the human existence and completely God-given. This is absolutely not the case for someone whose “intrinsic disorder” consists in wanting to screw a dog, or his mother, or a person of the same sex, or a child. These kinds of behaviour all blatantly go against the very fabric of our human nature; far from being a wrong use of, or excessive dependence from, or even obsession with what is a God-given desire, they go frontally against the way God made us. God makes every healthy man with the desire for good food, but none with the desire of the abominations described above.

This seems to me such an obvious thought, that a discussion about it appears perfectly superfluous; but this is not the first time the way of thinking explained above is, if not openly professed (again, the post merely makes the point one can send yourself to hell with gluttony, and to get the excuse that “it is part of me” won’t help much in the end), at least invited, or involuntary suggested, in a public area.

We must recover sound thinking and common sense in the discussion about Catholic morals; and we can do it only if we serenely acknowledge, and openly profess, that there is an intrinsic gulf between the immoderate or misguided use of desires that are supposed to be there, and the perversion (per and versio, “wrong direction”) resulting in desires that are utterly disgusting, and conflicting with natural law.

This lack of proper focus, or if you wish this inability to see the forest of reason and common sense because of the obsession with the trees of this or that verse, or this or that public statement, of this or that desire to be “inclusive”, appears to me another speciality of the Protestant world, where the madness of sola scriptura has caused a century-long tradition in word-picking and a high specialisation in self-serving private interpretation of Scripture; until the point comes when the forest is completely out of sight.

We must reacquire the habit of talking straight and call a pervert a pervert and an abomination an abomination. There is an intrinsic and ontological difference, not merely a variance in degree, between the sin of a glutton and the sin of a sodomite. We must say this straight, because to mix up things in that way isn’t charitable, merely extremely dangerous for human souls, potentially including ours. 

We recover proper Catholicism by recovering healthy thinking, and accepting that Christianity – and more so Catholicism – never go against sound wisdom and elementary common sense.



Long Weekend: Remember To Boycott Starbucks!

Boycott starbucks

A long weekend has begun in this once great Britain.

Whilst the weather doesn’t seem to favour us much, millions will fill the cafes all over the country.

This is a wonderful occasion to remember to boycott Starbucks.


Richard Dawkins Admits Atheism Is a Delusion

Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

In an embarrassing (for the Atheists) and rare show of common sense, Richard Dawkins admitted to be only sure to 6.9 sevenths (which, to you and I who do not have a book to promote, means around 98.6%) God does not exist. This leaves only space for the conclusion (as in such things tertium non datur) Dawkins considers the existence of God a 1.4% probability.

In my book, this means Dawkins not only maintains he is not an atheists, but maintains Atheists are wrong. Always in my book, a 1.4% probability of being wrong in your supposition qualifies you as an agnostic, albeit of a rather obdurate sort.

The moderator of this debate seems to have reached the same conclusion, and to his surprise Dawkins said he is called an atheists by other people, but “not by himself”.

Now, before someone starts the soppy song of the “pleasant surprise”…

View original post 220 more words

“Clump Of Cells On Board”

In my neck of the wood it is becoming more frequent to see pregnant women wearing a “baby on board” badge. Whilst this is very nice, it must also be noted no one asks the women in question where is the baby they are supposed to be carrying, or whether they have forgotten him at home. Everyone knows the baby is the human being inside her mother, a human life obviously and naturally perceived as such.

Isn’t it strange that a society which so unquestioningly accepts the creature in the womb is a baby also unquestioningly allows this baby to be killed, perfectly legally and basically – if not formally – on demand?

But then again this is the same society which claims to value marriage and family, but allows perverts to live together as faggot & faggot (or lesbian and lesbian) without any problem. Par for the course, then.


Gay Scouts Of America

And so the Gay Scouts Of America have decided that young faggots can flaunt their perversion in front of your children, and get in touch with them. It will take some time before faggotry paves its way to the leaders, but it appears clearly unavoidable as once you give up the principle the rest will follow from itself.

I am now curious to see what excuses bad Catholic bishops will take to justify the permanence of Catholic boys in this organisation, now officially dominated by Mormons, liberal Proddies, and corporate money.

I truly hope the sane elements among the Boy Scouts will defect and create parallel organisations, something certainly not difficult to do once the local organisation is … already there.

I also make an easy prediction: the numbers will continue to go south, and the cry for the admission of homosexual leaders will become louder in just a few years' time. It is the logic of the Presbyterians; which is illogical, but they don't know that.

The Boy Scouts of America (and of many European Countries) join the number of organisations now polluted by the satanic influence of the times, and which therefore deserve to die. Which they will do one day, but not before helping to ruin countless souls.


Pope Francis Strikes Again

Knew what he was talking about: Pope Benedict

I do not know you, but I think that the shallowness of this Pope is getting seriously embarrassing. This, if we charitably assume that the Pope is being merely unintentionally shallow rather than wilfully disingenuous. As one tries to be charitable particularly concerning the Holy Father, I suggest we assume the first, but never become blind to the possibility of the second.

“Nessuno deve uccidere in nome di Dio” and “anche soltanto dirlo e’ una bestemmia”, the Pope has declared in one of his rather spontaneous sermons. Now, in Italian “uccidere” is in common parlance used both for killing and for murder, and the context tells you which is which, though if you mean “murder” you may well use unambiguous words like “assassinare”.

Therefore, the words of the Pope can be interpreted in an orthodox way (“no one can commit a murder in the name of God, and even to say so is blasphemy”; I certainly can’t hack a man to pieces with a meat cleaver in the name of God), but can also be understood in the “spirit of V II”, pacifist way of “no one can wage war in the name of God, and even to say so is a blasphemy”; negative implications for the capital punishment can be drawn in exactly the same way.

Now, has the Pope said countless saints of the past (think of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the real engine beside the promotion of the Second Crusade; or even Saint Francis, another great friend of the Crusades, to mention just two) were blasphemous, together with all those men who risked or gave their life in battle for Christ? No, he didn’t say so and, if confronted with the thoughtless shallowness of his own words, he would certainly deny it.

Still, this is the way everyone who so desires will be able to understand the Pope’s words, and there is no denying the constant desire for popularity coming from the Vatican media outlets took care that this is the case.

Now, whenever the Pope makes such affirmations we are not given the full text of the homily, possibly because of the inordinate rambling therein contained; but as the Pope allows this to happen, and allows the Vatican Radio to publish the “convenient” and “savoury” snippets of his sermons, he must be held responsible for the consequences of their posturing and cheap marketing.

Therefore, either the Pope knows better, but wilfully sows these kindergarten banalities in order to become popular among the ignorant and the stupid (we do not want to think that, if we can); or, more probably and more charitably, he is a man of such little depth that whenever he talks in public he utters every thought that comes to his mind without reflecting on the implications, and without any concern for the way his words will be interpreted; what this also tells us about his well-publicised humility, I will leave it for you to decide.

This Pope has been compared to a country priest. Frankly, I think we have the right to expect better than that from a country priest, too; but at least the country priest doesn’t have the Vatican Radio website to divulge urbi et orbi whatever is produced by his “streams of consciousness”.

My suggestion is that the Vatican Radio website either ignores the Pope’s homily or publishes them in their entirety. But the best solution would be that the Holy Father starts to understand what his role entails and to read homilies carefully prepared (possibly not by him, or reviewed by a sound theologian) beforehand, so that both theological nonsense and ambiguities are avoided.

This Papacy is becoming a kindergarten. The Pope seems not displeased.


On Hell Again

Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

A couple of days ago, I have let through one comment on hell in answer to a previous blog post. The very confused poster goes on with the usual confused mantras of the liberal and atheist society, as the concept of eternal torment does not seem to agree with oh how oh good oh he oh is.He also had some problems about those whom he thinks wish hell on other people. Those who feel oh so oh good always need to see the others as oh so oh bad…

I have written here my reflections on “wishing hell” to someone, but this was not about this, and the poster’s problems were much deeper seated.

I suggest that everyone with any doubt about hell reads this. Many of the most common answers to the doubts of the skeptical are found there.

Still, in the middle of the rubbish of the…

View original post 1,085 more words

Woolwich Attack: Some Thoughts

Yes, it's a meat clever; and yes, that is the soldier's blood.

Two men sit in a car around 2pm in a busy street in London, near the Woolwich Barracks. They wait for someone to come out. When this happens, they knock him down with the car, with a violence showed by the damage to the vehicle as it ends against a post.

The two get out of the car and start to, literally, butcher the man alive, insulting him and shouting Islamic slogans. They are armed with a least a big knife and a meat cleaver (yes, a meat cleaver), apparently also with a machete that I have not seen in any video.

After the murder they remain there, shouting, inviting people to get near, and take photos and videos. The man with the meat cleaver, his arm and hands covered in blood, rants his Islamic slogans. They are clearly waiting for the armed police to arrive and probably shoot them. After an astonishingly long 20 minutes the armed police is there, and punctually takes both of them down. One is gravely wounded, and is transported with a helicopter to an hospital to (oh, the irony…) save his life.

Not even the stupidest, most brainwashed liberal out there can have any doubt these people were compos mentis, and will be convicted as surely as the “amen” in the church.

In saner times, they would have been condemned to death. In a case like this – an obviously premeditated murder, and a brutally cruel one at that, against a man targeted purely for being a soldier – the capital punishment is not only the expression of an elementary sense of justice, but is also very useful for the murderers, as the approaching of the punishment for their deed helps them to repent and die at peace with at least their god, hoping the real one considers it sufficient to avoid hell. They say – and I do believe – that the approaching of death concentrates the mind beautifully.

This was also what happened in, say, the Papal States. Justice required foul murders to be paid with one's life, and charity provided spiritual assistance to the very end. Who knows how many have (obviously helped by God's grace) managed to achieve a happy death at the gallows, who might otherwise not have been achieved.

Not in these disgraceful times, though. You can butcher a man you have never seen with a meat clever, and an army of social workers will be busy on you for the decades to come, the prospect of freedom one day a distant, but not unrealistic one. The social workers will, in fact, do all they can to avoid realising you are just evil; you must be mad, or at least reformable if enough employment opportunities for the likes of them (not you; them) is given.

Modern society is so scared with death that it does not want to contemplate it, not even for evil bastards like these two. The country simply removes the reality of death from its radar screen for as long as it gets. Life (all life; even the foxes' or the badgers') is one of the sacred cows of our godless societies.

Let us congratulate, then, the two bastards; who after having butchered a man alive have now the perspective of a long life, all expenses courtesy of the stupid taxpayer, whilst feeling like heroes.




Pollyanna And V II

Empty Pews. The work of the Holy Ghost?




Someone tweeted me the question whether I believe that V II was not the work of the Holy Spirit. The tweet was possibly a joke, as anyone who takes two minutes to read my blog cannot really have many doubts where I stand. Still, we must confront the tragic reality that as I write this there are people out there who in fact believe the Holy Ghost, instead of Satan, was the source of inspiration for the entire matter.

So let us think for a moment what the logical consequence of this thinking is. If the Holy Ghost inspired V II, it follows that the Holy Ghost has changed his mind very radically about the way to say Mass, thinking on second thoughts that the injection of Calvinist elements and the removal of Catholic elements from the Mass is just the ticket. Following, we must also agree the Holy Ghost desired that theologians censored by the Church only a few years before may now be called to redefine what Catholic theology is, even trying, as they almost successfully did, to demolish Papal authority or – as, if memory serves, Rahner tried, inter alia, to do – to steer the Church towards embracing the Protestant tenet of sola fide.

Further, the Holy Ghost must in this perspective have wanted the most spectacular exercise in muddling of Church teaching ever attempted in two thousand years – involving key aspects of the Church, like religious freedom – with the explosion of duplicity and doublespeak – and the utter abandonment of clear theological language and Thomist thinking – found pretty much everywhere in the conciliar documents.

But this is not all. The biggest crisis of vocations ever experienced, and a significant percentage of the clergy leaving the habit, must also have been wanted by the Holy Ghost, because if the Holy Ghost wills a revolutionary council he must perforce will its consequences. From this follows, with elegant inevitability, that the Holy Ghost also willed (as opposed to: allowed) the huge loss of grip of the Church in Catholic countries, and Catholics all over the West starting to divorce, contracept and abort in a manner not really distinguishable from the ways of non-Catholics.

I could go on for very long, but I will keep it short. In short, the idea of these people is that the Holy Ghost both changes his mind and starts doing things in a catastrophically wrong way.

If you ask me, in order to believe such a huge load of rubbish one must be equipped with either a very low intelligence, or a robust dose of disingenuousness, or a substantial emotional investment blinding him to the obvious error of his ways. I’d say the first kind is rather spread among the less gifted pew sitters; the second is the preserve of those desiring to do away with hell and all the unpleasant teachings, and the third is the main trait of most of the clergy, starting from the Popes – all of them, almost certainly; though we do not know what Pope Luciani would have done with V II behind the usual words – and ending with the stupid priest wishing “a bigger role for women with the new Papacy” about whom yours truly has reported.

To all of them is common a good dose of denial. To see so many Western countries introduce a parody of marriage whilst church attendance plummets to very low levels and still think that this is nothing to do with the Church’s surrender to the desire of popularity and harmony proves that it is the desire not to see that blinds them, and makes them think V II may have something to do with the Holy Ghost rather than being an open attack to Him.

In the meantime, we experience a new generation of Catholics: those whose sons are generally indifferent and whose nephews don’t get baptised. I wonder when this has happened last. I actually wonder whether it has ever happened in the first place.

Two generations after V II, we are seeing post-Christianity at work. To say this immense work of demolition of Christian societies all over the West is merely a problem of implementation has the same content of intelligence and logic as to maintain Communism was good, but unfortunately its implementation was lacking.


The Mini Exorcist.

Look at this video with attention, and you will realise something is going on here.

The Pope approaches some people on wheelchairs. As he prepares to greet and give a blessing to one of them, the priest accompanying him whispers to the Pope something. Note the conversation is of some importance, that is: the priest thought something had to be said; also it is clearly confidential, not the kind of “Mr soandso travelled from Xyz to see you and brings you the greetings of all his family at home” communication.

The Holy Father listens seriously, and then performs on the man a blessing that one would consider rather lengthy, not stopping when the man starts to behave very strangely instead of interrupting and asking the man if he is all right.

Rorate Caeli now has the news Father Amorth has in the meantime performed an exorcism on the man, and found him possessed.

Granted, I wasn't there. But if we take together the video and Father Amorth's words, my limited intelligence has little doubts as to what has probably happened.

A man in suspicion of being possessed is brought to Rome so that a rite of exorcism be performed on him, if found necessary. He gets the opportunity of a papal blessing (camera and wheelchair: an irresistible combination with this Pope). When the Pontiff approaches, the priest says to him something on the lines of: “strange things happenings with this chap, Holiness; he will be seen by an exorcist soon”. The Holy Father then gives this man a lengthy blessing, containing some exorcism formula (many of those in Catholic prayers), with the reaction you can observe.

An unusual occurrence (possessed men are not found at every corner), but nothing extraordinary, really.

We know some people are possessed, because we are Christians and know it from the Gospel. We also know the Church trains a number of exorcists not out of desire to play Hollywood, but because there is a need for them. Thirdly, we know that Father Amorth found the man to be possessed. Fourthly, it would be strange that a possessed man may receive a blessing and mini exorcism from a Pope without showing any reaction whatsoever, and actually it would possibly say more about the Pope than about the man.

As far as I know, every priest can, in theory, give it a try when in the presence of a possessed man, though the Church wants such a rite to be performed by ad hoc trained priests. If a priest can, than the more so a bishop, who has the fullness of holy orders.

Therefore, it seems to me that nothing extraordinary has happened, at least for us Catholics who are informed about demonic possession and exorcism already.



V II, Mice, Top Cat

Reblog of the day

Oklahoma: In The Midst Of Life….

As I write this, the death count of the Oklahoma tornado is at 91. My and your prayers are, I am sure, with the deceased and their love ones.

As this is a Catholic blog, though, I would like to share some of the very politically incorrect thought that went through my mind as I heard the news. How many of the deceased believed in God? Did they have time to prepare themselves? How many of them are now saved, and how many condemned?

“But Mundabor, how can you have such insensitive thoughts when so many have died? How can you even think that this is the time to think about hell? How can you, come to that, think that God would send to hell even one of those whom he deprived of life in such a way? And the children, the children! How can you imagine God would send even one of them to hell??!!”.

Well, I have insensitive thoughts because I think the thought of salvation and damnation is not only never out of place, but actually very salutary in situations like this, reminding us in a very media effective way that in the midst of life we are in death. I also think that every day is the right day to think about hell, and that a day without a single thought of hell was probably a day that could have been better employed. I also, being a Catholic, do not think that dead people become heroes, or saints, just for being dead. Actually, I think the reality is far more sobering: after death the judgment.

Being a Catholic I also know that the cards of those children who died unbaptised are rather bad, with limbo to be generally expected for the little ones, and hell for many of the not so little anymore. It is important to be baptised. Actually, it is vital. Our forefathers knew these things, we are the only one who are so stupid to think we know better, and extend baptism by desire to pretty much everyone, probably including the cat and the dog if at all possible.

In the midst of life, we are in death. And if we didn't care two straws for God's laws in life, we will be very probably screwed forever in death. It's as insensitive as that.

You may think it cynical, or even wicked, to think (and remind others) of the fact that a number of those who died are probably in hell already. You may want to ask St. Thomas about the probability of damnation rates of less than 1%, but I won't insult your intelligence with such V II rubbish. Personally, I agree with Garrigou-Lagrange and many before him, whose tentative count would look rather different. Insensitive thoughts. But very salutary ones.

In your charity, pray for the dead; but as you pray, keep in mind there is one life, and after that the judgment. If you ask me, these are the days that can do most for us and the ones we love.



Say Hello To The “Deaconite Couples”

Interesting post on Father Z's blog, informing us of another disquietingly interesting innovation of these V II plagued times: the “Deaconite Couple”.

This appears to be a new, co-operative office by which the wife of a deacon, in a mysterious way, participates in the holy orders of her husband, the deacon; and in fact, the strange adjective referred to the dual entity, the “couple”, can only mean that the wife thinks – and many other pretend to believe – that some of the holy orders of the husband, in a manner of speaking, “stick” to the wife in virtue of her being… the wife.

Reading the comments, other interesting details of the life of some V II parish emerge, like the procession of the deacons and their wives at mass; another strange and more than somewhat disturbing innovation, showing not only that dissent can be expressed in more subtle ways than those of the mad nuns, but also that the V II mentality, with his allergy for the truth said whole, positively encourages such behaviour.

Now what must happen for such an interesting wannabe “innovation” to be introduced in the life of a parish? Let me think. The parish council (or however it is called) probably came up with the idea, and probably no one said “I will inform the priest of your disobedience”. The priest went along with it either because he is a nutcase, or because he is a coward, and no one told him “I will inform your bishop and Rome of your subversive behaviour”. The pew-sitters reading the announcements, parish newsletters etc. have also evidently not come to the idea of writing to the priest asking for this to stop, and if they have done they have done it too kindly, which when dealing with this kind of people is always the wrong way of doing things.

The funnier (for us) issue seems to be that some deacons have married the wrong woman and, as it often happens in these cases, don't have the guts to talk frankly to her. I can't imagine what would happen if the married priest were to become the rule within the Roman Rite: “priestly couple” galore in no time, and the procession with the wife at the start of the mass…

Vatican II pollutes the very heart of parish life. It encourages the wrong people to live in a fantasy world, where stupid personal wishes and an even more stupid desire for preeminence (I hear the woman already: “we as a Deaconite couple think inter religious dialogue is very important”) prevail over the most elementary rules of obedience. This is dissent on the sly, and I wonder how on earth can any priest be allowed to get away with that.

Vatican II is the gift that keeps on giving.


Boy Scouts Of America Look Into The Abyss

The Boy Scouts Of America (and not only of America; in other countries the situation is much worse) remind one of the Presbyterians: when the number started to dwindle, they gave away their values thinking marketing comes before ideals. The problem with that is that you generally end up failing on both sides.

I must smile when I read the pro-faggot faction claiming the decreasing membership can be countered by angering many of those who are still members, as if their belonging to the organisation were due to coincidence, or fate. It makes the same sense as to think that as boxing is declining, it is now fitting that aspiring boxers should also learn ballet.

I find the idea also stupid because it is not that the Boy Scouts have some special monopoly on their activity. They are based on territorial units which can easily detach themselves from the mother ship, or be cloned into rival organisations faithful to Christian values. The “brand” of the Boy Scouts may well still have some traction, but only as long as the existing organisation does not collide with the values of the generations before them, after which they will go, in the public perception, the way of the Presbyterians.

I do not have much hope Thursday's vote will go the right way: it is obvious that a caste of paid functionaries scared for their jobs will do all they can to have things their own way; but when the defections come, redundancies among them will be unavoidable anyway.

Loss of value, loss of prestige, and ultimately loss of jobs. This is what happens when an organisation formerly inspired by Christian values sells itself to the fashions of the day, and allows bad marketing to take the place of sound thinking.

Farewell, Boy Scouts of America? We'll soon know…


The Cardinal, The Public, And The Evil Governor

Cardinal Dolan has found another way to make an ass of himself or, seen from his perspective, to gain more points with the powers that be whilst trying to appear orthodox.

The Cardinal's intervention has already caused an uproar during the weekend, so I will not repeat what many other have eloquently written. I will, though, allow myself a couple of considerations about the motives and the forma mentis of this despicable man.

Cardinal Dolan doesn't care two straws for murdered children, or Catholicism come to that. It is clear to him the habit is a way to pursue a career exactly in the same way as he might have pursued a career, say, in marketing or, rather, politics.

In order to advance his career with the best chances of success, the Cardinal needs to do the following:

1. Be perceived as “strong” by those who do not closely follow his action; basically, he needs to be a “tough guy by hearsay”.

2. Be perceived by mainstream politicians of both colours as a safe bet: one who will never give anyone serious trouble and can therefore be helped to rise high, or at least not hindered from doing so.

3. Create an image of “popular guy”: the smiling uncle Cardinal you'd want at your table at Thanksgiving, obviously hoping he doesn't eat all the turkey.

4. Be seen by his fellow Cardinal as a harmless guy they can elect without fear of surprises; one who will produce himself in that kind of popular waffling they love so much without seriously angering anyone. The Cardinals have just elected one of those, by the way; so it works.

Notice how relentlessly the Cardinal pushes his agenda, and how well it is working for him. Observant Catholics do know he is a bad 'un, but why should he care? His public perception is what counts, and his public perception is doing just fine. The last threat of a “holy war” against a, erm, “Catholic in good standing” may be a total contradiction and an extremely stupid thing to say, but this is not how it will go down in the public opinion. For the masses, the perception will be of a tough Cardinal, because they do not think to the point of wondering what all this though talk will in the end lead to, and how can you threat holy wars without having the gut to say Cuomo is an evil man on his way to hell who must be annihilated. Dolan's wars are, evidently, fought by guffawing.

You can therefore see how the outrage among the fringe group of devout and attentive Catholics does not disturb the Cardinal in the least. Pope Francis will not be Pope forever, and with the years he will grow in stature and in weight (erm, cough) among his fellow Cardinals.

Make no mistake. His strategy is working just fine.



Do It, Faggots

The first “gay Prime Minister” has been increasingly under attack during the weekend concerning his and his wife's favourite perversion. I have written about it several times in the past, and I think it is fair to say the roots are mightily angry and many MPs are suitably scared, but still no decisive action is taken.

It is as if many would think what no one dares to say: what has this idiot made of us. Unfortunately, he could make of them a party of undecisive whinos because they are a party of undecisive whinos, torn between a looming revolt among the voters and their inner prostitute suggesting they do not go against the fashion of the day.

Do it, faggots. Grow some balls, and get rid of him. Margaret Thatcher would laugh at your whining attitude, and tell you very clearly how wet you are.

Get rid of him, or you might well discover the Country wakes up, and gets rid of you.


Cardinal Dolan Is A Permanent Embarrassment

The Dolan Reblog

Mundabor's Blog

“I don’t know. We’re still trying. We’re trying our best to do it. We gotta listen to people”.

This is the kind of waffle Cardinal Dolan managed to tell ABC talking about the ways the Church should allow perverts (he said “gays”) to feel “welcome”.

As a Catholic, one cannot avoid feeling embarrassed at the cowardice regularly put on display by this disgraceful man.

Cardinal Dolan is required to take position on so-called “gay” issues, and what does he do? Does he point out that sodomy is an abomination? Does he remind his audience that exterminating angels aren’t sent on earth to commit a genocide as a post-lunch routine? Does he spend at least thirty seconds talking of the very grave danger of hell for both sexual perverts and those who aid and abet them?

No, he doesn’t. Instead, he loses himself in inane waffle concerning the way the Church…

View original post 236 more words

Annoying Popes


Nice words from the Holy Father, again, and I thought I would spend a couple of words with you about them, and him.

More than once, reading the Pope’s utterances, I am reminded of a dish of spaghetti alla Carbonara: a simple, but very savoury and always pleasant dish (actually, I now think I’ll have them for lunch today…). And in fact, if our Holy Father can certainly not be called a theological high-flyer one cannot deny he has, like a good Carbonara, more than some pepper.

The last rustic dish cooked for us from the Holy Father is here, and again it has the strong but genuine flavours of the Italian kitchen: be zealous, don’t be afraid even to annoy, let people know where you stand, do not shrink back from the unpleasantness of confrontation for the right reasons. 

Up to here, it is all very well.

The problem I see is, though, that the Holy Father himself is a living example of the very behaviour he criticises.

In the two months since he has been Pope, one issue has dominated the world news both in and outside the religious sphere: the so-called gay marriage. Have you heard one single word from the Pontiff about this?

One. Single. Word? 

The one who tells us to be zealous, to be obnoxious, to be unpopular, to dare the fight, and who is the first one who has the duty to be zealous, to be obnoxious, to be unpopular, and to dare to fight, seems more interested in being lukewarm, agreeable, popular, and able to only crash open doors (poverty, social justice, and all that jazz); he manages, though, to be astonishingly silent, and utterly non-existent, when a real controversy presents itself. So yes, this Pope does manage to be annoying, but not for the reasons he (rightly) says we should. 

God is punishing us all right for the madness of the last 50 or 60 years, by allowing the Princes of the Church to continue in their ways. We must endure this prayerfully, and hope for better times.

Still, the next time I hear someone saying all must be fine because Francis is the Pope the Holy Ghost hand picked for us I will be tempted to slap him in the face.


%d bloggers like this: