Daily Archives: June 17, 2013
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
In his remarks to Welby, Francis said he hoped they could collaborate in promoting the sacredness of life “and the stability of families founded on marriage.” He noted that Welby had recently spoken out on the issue, a reference to his House of Lords speech.
Significantly, though, Francis didn’t specify that marriage should be based on a union between a man and woman, which is how Benedict XVI and John Paul II routinely defined it in a way that made clear their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Vatican officials said Francis’ phrasing was a diplomatic attempt to make his point without making a provocative pronouncement, particularly during an inaugural meeting with Welby that was aimed at getting to know one another. Francis though has steered clear of the gay marriage debate as it has recently roiled France and Britain, and in general has refrained from making headline-grabbing public comments on hot-button current issues.
In these few phrases is condensed all the paucity and moral bankruptcy of this very chatty, approximate, shallow, half-socialist, scandalous, but oh so humble Papacy.
The Pope’s address to Mr Welby – not an off-the-cuff remark, but an official address to one who thinks he is the number one Religious of his country – mentions family and a marriage in a way which implies that families can be either founded on traditional marriage, or not; or alternatively, that marriage is either the Catholic one, or not. Of the two, the Pope deigns himself to prefer the Catholic one. Alleluja.
This obviously looks very much like a huge white flag concerning the issue of sodomitical so-called “marriage”; something the Pope should know it’s sexually perverted and logically inconceivable. Therefore, journalists start, once again, to knock at the door of various Vatican officials and ask – not for the first time -“did he really mean that”?
The tragic, but so credible answer is printed above: the Pope doesn’t like to say the Truth, because the Truth would be “provocative”. I thought that to say the Truth is charitable, and Truth said in charity saves souls. But again I’m not a Jesuit, so what do I know. I am so confused I even think one is accessory in the sin of the sodomites if he is silent on the issue, and anyone who thinks the Pope is not being silent because of the one or other very indirect remark made unrecognisable in order not to be “provocative” is insulting his intelligence.
Even more pathetic is the excuse found for this open capitulation: this was the first meeting with Welby, and the man is such a sensitive flower that his delicate constitution might not have survived the “provocation” of basic Christianity. An argument which also forgets Welby did speak against so-called “gay marriage”, albeit in the usual Anglican way, so we may conclude he would have, very probably, survived the shock.
More brutal still are the words of comment to the Pope’s inactivity in the matter: Pope Francis ” has steered clear of the gay marriage debate as it has recently roiled France and Britain, and in general has refrained from making headline-grabbing public comments on hot-button current issues”. Very truthful observation. The Pontiff has, though, generously made his wisdom about gossip & co. – let alone salvation for atheists – available to the man and the woman on the street; who are – unsurprisingly – very impressed.
Every Italian knows a novel I have often mentioned on this blog, and may end up mentioning in future – much as I dearly love this novel – more than I would like to. In the immortal I Promessi Sposi (“The Betrothed”, here or here, or here in the Original) one of the main characters is Don Abbondio, a timid, weak, and rather cowardly priest ready to betray his priestly duties in the most scandalous of ways when the price might be an awful lot of discomfort or – as he thinks being a weak man – his own life. This character (like the entire novel) has become so much ingrained in the Italian psyche, that un Don Abbondio is still today a favourite way among the better educated to indicate this kind of weak and accommodating priest, “not born with a lion’s heart” and ready to betray his vocation; a vocation for which he must be ready, as Don Abbondio is reminded at the opportune juncture, to die.
In the case of Don Abbondio, the two henchmen you see above threaten him in case he were to celebrate “a certain marriage” between two good people living in the village; a marriage which, as they make clear, “must not take place”. The parallel with today’s situation is striking, with “a certain marriage” (the perverted caricature of the real one) that “must take place”. The Pope, timorous to cause controversy and to be “provocative”, is happy to do what he can to accommodate the wishes of his two bravi, Satan’s henchmen Obama and Cameron.
If you want an even more striking example, look at the letter the Pontiff sent to the British Prime Minister David Cameron ahead of the G8. The Pope is here addressing a Prime Minister who, as he writes, is doing all he can to introduce so-called same-sex marriage, a measure now imminent. Still, his letter does not address the question with one word. In the same letter, though, the Pope accomplishes the unprecedented feat of giving abortion a “social justice” profile, as if for him every Christian principle were worthy of being followed because it’s social, not because it’s God’s law.
Don Abbondio has become Pope, and his thinking, speaking and acting have a striking resemblance with the original’s.
Allow me to finish this blog post with the following words (emphases mine):
“How’s our faith? Is it strong? Or is it sometimes a bit superficial? (all’acqua di rose – “like rose water”, meaning banal, an insufficient substitute, shallow, inadequate)” When difficulties come, “are we courageous like Peter or a little lukewarm?” Peter – he pointed out– didn’t stay silent about the Faith, he din’t descend to compromises, because “the Faith isn’t negotiable.” “There has been, throughout history of the people, this temptation: to chop a piece off the Faith”, the temptation to be a bit “like everyone else does”, the temptation “not to be so very rigid”. “But when we start to cut down the Faith, to negotiate Faith, a little like selling it to the highest bidder”
You know who this is, right?
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
A controversy has erupted on a well-known Catholic blog concerning whether those who receive communion on the tongue are better Catholics than those who don’t.
It seems to me this is muddling the waters.
I would never dream of considering myself a better Catholic than others just because I never received the Holy Communion in the hands once in my life (and, just so you know, never will). I am sure there is an army of people out there who receive in the hands – as they are, alas, allowed to – and are far better Catholics than the wretched sinner writing these lines.
But you see, this is just not the issue.
It is obvious to everyone worth his salt that, whatever was practised by the “first Christians”, later Christians decided pretty soon that kneeling and on the tongue is the proper, because most reverent, way to receive Holy Communion. There can be no discussion about that, because this is a historic fact on which there is no controversy.
Therefore, he who decides that it is fine to receive in the less reverent way just because this is now allowed has not become a worse Catholic than myself, but he certainly receives Communion in worse way than I do. Apart from this, it is still rather difficult for me (my bad, no doubt) to think how one can be persuaded that the consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and still think the Protestants, who do not believe in it, had found a better way to honour this very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity than the Church of Christ, before she did or after she forgot it. The other matter – how many still believe in Transubstantiation after 50 years of, well, receiving Communion like Protestants – I do not even consider, because I am interested here only in the True Catholics, those who believe all that the Church believes and profess all that the Church professes; and who can be excellent Catholics in many ways.
Still, how they can seriously reflect on what Holy communion is and still prefer to… give God to themselves is beyond me.
Damon and Michael Douglas put in great performances, as does the rest of the (star-studded) cast, who all deserve sincere praise for their commitment to this project, which others in the industry were reportedly too scared to touch. However, whilst both leads put in commendably watchable performances, I am not quite sure how much they were really able to feel some of the emotions they perform.
Read here (or perhaps not) the considerations of a chap who appears not to be a religious, but who is still published by the web site of the British Jesuits. I have written and reblogged about these people already.
The entire article does not mention, not even en passant, the sin of the Sodomites as being reprehensible in any way, shape or form. People simply are homosexual in the same way as they are, say, blond. There is a mention of “darker issues”, but one is not given to understand whether they relate to sodomy in any way. “The Big Sleep” was also very “dark” in its issues, come to that.
But the author goes further than that: whilst he questions the credibility of the source used for this movie, he notices the initial story was rejected as “too gay”, and the fact he says this movie is now one of the straightest he has seen in years not only tells you something about the movies he must normally watch, but also clearly indicates the movie lacks “gayness”.
The pearl is at the end: the actors must be “commended” for their “commitment” to a project other were “too scared to touch”; but you see, the main characters still aren’t, in real life, homos, so he wonders whether they are really “able to feel some of the emotions they perform”. In this man’s mind homo actors would have been better, of course. They would have had the right “feelings”, you know. Again, this film is not faggoty enough.
I thought actors are supposed to portray emotions they do not feel, which is why they can portray serial killers, and the like; but apparently a film about perverts requires perverts to be made properly, though the commitment to the portrayal of perversion deserves, how can it be otherwise, “sincere praise”.
Yes, this review must be from a Jesuit site. I wish I could say to you that if a religious instead of a layman had written the review, the Christian content would have been at least vaguely perceptible. Alas, this is not the case, and more likely than not such a writer would have abused of the initials after his name to be even more supportive of the sin of the sodomites. Jesuits are so keen to let you know how open minded they are. Heck, nowadays one must wonder about the odds of a Jesuit being straight in the first place.
This once great religious order is dying. The Pope complains such orders cling on their own money. The rot they have everywhere, he is unable or unwilling to see, much less correct.
Another Jesuits Reblog
The news reaches us Cardinal O’Malley will boycott the latest anti-Christian initiative of the latest Jesuit-run institution.
One must truly be stunned at the amount of damage this evil bunch of (real or honorary) atheist, satanic, homosexual bastards are doing to the Church.
It seems like the Jesuits want to go to hell en masse, and are bent on nothing but the most relentless war against Christ until the last one of them has kicked the bucket.
Yes, there will be a small number of good ones among them. Very few, I suppose. But let us be honest, when I read of them, 99% of the time is because of the way they attack Jesus and the Church.
I have experienced the Jesuits in Wimbledon. They’ll make your blood freeze, and I suspect they are considered moderates among their fellows.
The Pope is now a Jesuit. It’s fair to say…
View original post 54 more words