Daily Archives: May 29, 2013

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.

Mundabor


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.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: