Monthly Archives: August 2013
The beautiful (at least in these parts) summer 2013 is going to an end, and after the summer pause we must make ourselves strong for another series of antics from the bishop of Rome, Francis.
Francis has, says the Telegraph, no time for protocol. Instead of having visitors bow to him, he bows directly to them, lest they should think the head of the Catholic Church is someone worth bowing to. So happened with the rather fetching Queen Rania of Jordan, on visit to the bishop in white.
Once again, we must draw a very simple lesson: Francis does not care for the papacy. He does not care of how the office is perceived. What he is interested in is that he himself may look good, modern, simple, and oh so humble.
One shudders at how bad must have been all the Popes of the past, who insisted on the particular position of the Successor of Peter being stressed at all times. They had times for protocol, for proper clothes, even for Beethoven!
Apparently, they knew that symbols are powerful; that who bows to whom is a very important question; that the one who bows to the Pope shows respect to the office, not to the man. They knew that these matters do are important, which is why they, like the rest of the planet, had time for protocol.
Francis hasn't “time” for these things, and he is “not interested” in protocol. Francis is interested in the perception of Francis, the man. A couple of days ago he showed up at a meeting in Rome with the now famously “humble” Ford, without even a Vatican registration number. He also appears to have entered the church with – refers the “Homograph” – his folded mitre tucked under the right arm. As if he were embarrassed by it, or thought it just superfluous.
“Look” – he seems to say – “my name is Francis. Forget that I am Pope, ok?”.
I wish I could.
One who is more and more embarrassed of any visible manifestation of being a Pope should, if you ask me, ask himself whether he should, or is fit to, be one. One can't be Pope and demand that he be considered just to a nice uncle. The reputation of the uncle may well increase, but the importance of the office can only be damaged. One does not have to be a genius to understand this, or an experienced diplomatician. Francis has lived in the corridors of power for many years. He knows why people bow to the Pope.
He is simply interested in the uncle, not the Pope.
If you are the conservative oriented chap, it is always fun to observe the left's highjacking of people of the past who would, today, very probably not support them.
Take Martin Luther King, the determined civil rights activist and, strangely enough, Protestant pastor. Whilst MLK's record as a minister (small m) would not stand the most lenient moral standards of today (unless he were homosexual, that is; in which case a “progressive” Presbyterian community would be certainly found for him), it is fair to say he believed in God and in the sanctity of human life.
King was killed before Roe vs Wade, but there can be no doubt he was what we today call “pro life”. I am not even sure the expression existed in those times, and I actually am inclined to think the word was born only after it became necessary to find a way to express the bleeping obvious: that to kill a baby in the womb is murder.
It is, therefore, very apt one of MLK' daughters reminded us, during the celebrations for her father, that MLK was – obviously, I hasten to add – against abortion. I can't imagine the day he died there were many who would call themselves both Christians and “pro-choice”.
Even better is that his descendants hasten to make this point heard, with one of his daughters (apparently “Bernice”, perhaps “Berenice”?) making clear that life begins in the womb, and a niece of him, Alveda, making clear Obama's stance in favour of the genocide of – disproportionately blacks, by the by – babies in the womb is the reason why she would not vote for the Gay President.
I doubt the pro-life stance of MLK got a vast echo in the liberal media during the celebrations; but from the other side of the Pond one notices once again how healthily the pro-life movement is growing. Here in Europe we are very far from either the level of debate or the aggressive legislative measures of many parts of the United States. May they grow stronger in the years to come.
It's a long-term project. The process of de-nazification of a nation can only be carried out by caring for the new generations to grow up denazified; not many of those so horribly brainwashed during the last fifty years will change, at least consciously, their mind during their lifetime. Our best bet is in those, well, not aborted this year, rather than in those who have, well, aborted yesteryear.
You can have dreams only if you were born in the first place. If you are murdered in the womb, the only “change” you'll ever experience is atrocious suffering, following by your death.
“I have a dream”, would the baby in the womb say; “that I am not murdered before seeing the light”.
It's too bad for him that hope and change are in power.
I had thought that in a world so stupidly perverted as to even contemplate the possibility of a man “marrying” another man (or a woman marrying another woman) pretty much everything would be possible, like marrying one’s own dog (copyright: Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor).
But in another tragic example of how reality overtakes fantasy, we are now informed a woman decided to marry…. herself.
Whilst the news is reported with the tongue-in-cheek attitude one would expect, I am not entirely sure there isn’t a deep logic in this.
First of all, the thing cannot have been made in jest. Dozens of people invited; eleven-years-old child saying to her mother he is embarrassed for her (good chap; there are hopes) and real, “solo honeymoon” to be paid with real money. Most of all, no sane person would push a joke to this level of insanity. At this point, even…
View original post 279 more words
This blog post is written to charitably help the followers of an heathenish cult calling itself “church of England” (small “c” is mine) to separate themselves from it before their day comes, because the punishment might well be horrible and eternal.
The way the head of the so-called “c of E” disregards the basics of Christianity is such that no one can claim anymore to believe in Christian principles and in this man's rambling at the same time.
When the leader of a cult known for changing his mind about almost everything under the sun (say: divorce, priestettes, and now bishopettes) arrives to the point of saying, as if it was a matter of course, that “society has evolving views on sexuality” without a hint of condemnation of the thus changing view (and note he does not say “changing views”, he says “evolving views”) you know to him either God doesn't “evolve”, but society does, or the Commandments themselves must “evolve”. When he says the opposition to so-called “same-sex marriages” (not the sodomy in itself, of course! God forbid! How “homophobic”!) is seen by some as “akin to racism” without openly attacking their sodomitical prejudices, you know he is preparing to a more or less open volte-face. When he says he is against same-sex so-called marriage but condemns as homophobic the Christian society of the past, you know he has already sold himself to the enemy.
We complain about our (admittedly: disgraceful)
Pope bishop of Rome, but we as Catholic have the saving grace of a doctrinal structure no Pope can change. The Proddies don't think that way. Their “evolving” apparently includes the sixth and the ninth commandment, which can be deprived of any meaning simply because they “must face” that society has “evolved”.
Heavens, what a buffoon. And this would be a Christian? Most Muslims must be far more Christian than this chap, because they at least share many of the norms of traditional Christian morality without even believing that Christ is God; whilst Welby claims to believe that Christ is God, and denies Him to adore the golden calf of popular opinion and “evolving views on sexuality”.
Seriously. These people aren't even Christians anymore. They are jokers in fancy dress. They can't even remember the basics. They consider approval of perversion an “evolution”.
How little are the salvation chances of people going to the grave identifying themselves with such views? How many of them already share these views, and how many more will do so in future?
Anglicanism has become a heathenish cult of man with no resemblance anymore to any Christian thinking worthy of the name. What a bunch of clowns, what a cartoon “religion”.
Abandon them as long as you can, or die in communion with them at your peril.
Traditional Catholicism has always been very logical.
If God is the source of all that is good, it unavoidably follows that people are good in proportion of God's love for them. If God loves them more, they will have more of that most evident manifestation of godliness that is goodness.
Therefore, the saintliest men and women are such certainly through their own effort; but they make the effort to such an heroic degree because they are loved most.
This utterly politically incorrect, Un-egalitarian Truth has been believed by countless generations of Catholics without any problem. Ultimately, Padre Pio is vastly better than I am, because God loves him vastly more than he loves me.
If one does not accept simple truths like this, rebellion can't be far away, because then there would be something fishy or arbitrary in the way God selects his great saints, and one would feel treated “unjustly” at not being so loved by God as Padre Pio was; though how many would really want to have his lifelong suffering and tribulations is, I dare to think, a different matter.
God loves me, then, vastly less than Padre Pio. He clearly loves me – and all of us – with a love no human mind is able to imagine; but still, with a love vastly less strong than the one he has for Padre Pio; a love that was – had to be, if we are coherent – there before Padre Pio was born in the first place.
Once upon a time, things were very linear, very simple, and utterly logical. If saintliness is a gift from God coming from His love for us, my duty as a Catholic is to try my best to be as good as I can; so that the growth in holiness, once achieved, may be in itself the proof of God's love for me. Those whom he predestined, he also called, and justified, and glorified.
God first predestines some; and then, to the predestined, he gives ways to, so to speak, learn the trade of saintliness and become proficient in it. This, because he loves them more. If, therefore, one manages to become a saintly man this is in itself, so to speak, the proof of the pudding. If he weren't loved more, he wouldn't be saintly. His efforts at being saintly have been inspired in the first place, and subsequently crowned with success, because he was loved more.
Makes sense, right?
Well, apparently, not entirely. Or not for all. Or, at least, not for some.
The Bishop of Rome – the oh-so-modestly-driving, Mozzetta-shunning, feet-of-infidels-washing, friend-of-newsagents Francis – seems to either think differently or, more probably, seem to want you to think differently.
No,” he said, “you are not excluded! Precisely for that reason you are preferred, because Jesus prefers the sinner, always, in order to pardon him, to love him. Jesus is waiting for you, to embrace you, to pardon you.”
The idea here is not that the sinner must never feel excluded – of course he must not; what are we, darn Calvinists? – ; the message is that the sinner is, in some strange way not explained to us, preferred and loved more. Preferred, mind, not “even if a sinner”, but preferred as sinner, or better said preferred because a sinner.
One wonders. Extremely saintly people like Padre Pio – one who, even as a child, talked to angels like I talked to my grandmother – must obviously be loved so much less, and not preferred at all; because heavens, if one is so boringly good, what great desire will God have to wait for him, embrace him, and pardon him? Compare the great saint, if you please, with the drug addict, the alcoholic, the sodomite, or the child rapist. How much must God love them! Ah, if I were at least a coprophagous man (for you Greek majors: a shit-eater), I could certainly claim to be preferred to Padre Pio! (though, sadly, certainly not to all the pedophiles and sodomites out there)…
Let us leave the jocose world of the paradoxes aside, and let us examine the brutal truth of today's Catholicism. What we see – in Bishop Francis as in many others – is the unspoken desire to let people feel good, full stop. As we are all sinful, to let people feel good unavoidably becomes to let people feel good in their sinfulness. This goes, with an attitude than I can only call Jesuitical, so far as to imply that great sinners are, in some way, special: more loved, and preferred.
That this puts the very concept of morality upside down escapes Francis, because Francis isn't fine or smart enough for Beethoven, much less Aquinas. What counts for Francis is, though, not to be smart or even logical – almost no one is nowadays, so who cares – but to be popular, hip, modern, daring, and oh so refreshing.
This aim he has obviously achieved. Read his words again, put them in the luv and joy context of V II, and you will immediately realise what he has in mind is the awakening of the emotional, cosy feelings so typical of our times.
“Gosh, I must be loved so much!” , thinks the crack addict as he steers the next high…
As I write these politically incorrect words, I can almost hear the high-pitched whining of the bitches of political correctness of both sexes and none. They will certainly call me monstrous, because I lack the feeling and compassion for said drug addicts, & Co.
What they neglect to think, though, is that logic and Christian morals are nothing to do with… feelings; on the contrary, there is no religion on the planet as divinely logical as the True One. Wrong is wrong. Feelings about it are neither here nor there.
As for compassion, I declare that the emotional sissies – of both sexes, and none – do contribute to create the very problems they claim to be so compassionate about; if not with positive help and approval, at least with the implied acceptance and the complicit silence that make them accessory in the others' sin; whilst, no doubt, feeling awfully good with themselves, and undeniably saintly.
Bishop Francis belongs to this category of people and is, in fact, their undisputed torchbearer. Whenever he opens his, alas, Jesuit's mouth, you know something will be wrong somewhere, but he will sound good everywhere.
A Dolan without the gluttony. This is the … bishop of Rome we have. I am afraid a Francis with the gluttony might even be his successor.
Pray for Francis with all your heart. If not for love of him – not easy, I am sure – at least for love of Christ and His Church, of his guardian angel, and of his immortal soul.
It is rumoured the first Western bombs might fall on Syrian target as early as tomorrow, Thursday, though I think the Western public opinion will need some day more to digest the news.
One wonders if the same zeal would have been put on display had it been discovered that the rebels are the authors of the chemical weapons deployment.
A few days after his return to Rome, Pope Francis was more clear. He had the secretariat of state informed that Monsignor Ricca “will remain in his position.”
And thus with him there will remain intact the glaring contradiction between the work of housecleaning and reorganization of the Roman curia that Pope Francis has repeatedly said he wants and the “prelate” of his appointment in whom he continues to place his trust, a perfect emblem precisely of those scandalous behaviors and of those “lobbies” of power which should be swept away.
One has to like Sandro Magister. In these times of shameless brown-nosing of everyone who is popular – Bishop of Rome absolutely not excluded – he is the only one among the worldwide respected and followed voices who says very clear that Bishop Francis keeps giving scandal and still doesn’t get it.
In a long article, Magister says very clearly that the King – or I should say, the Bishop – is naked. I find it particularly noteworthy that whilst the article mainly deals with the other scandalous appointment of the questionable woman from Calabria, Magister does not forget to keep his readers alert to the permanent scandal that is the support the Bishop of Rome continues to give to the, again, scandalous sodomite in the highest ranks, and an appointment of his very modest self.
Whilst Michael Voris avoids real criticism, Father Z looks for positive news with an ever more powerful magnifying glass and the varied progressive troop with a varnish of pretended conservatism swoon over how cool sacrilegious beach masses are, Magister points out with a rather stringent logic to two of the biggest problems of Francis: a) making wrong decisions and b) refusing to correct them when they explode like hand granates just very shortly after he has released them.
The hubris of this man is impressive, if not very humble. Once he has made a gigantic cock-up, he takes refuge in “not judging”, and certainly not acting. It should not be seen that the… bishop of Rome has made a rookie’s mistake; actually, already very many of them; and he Seventy-Seven.
Either Francis is so much in love with his public image that he thinks it worthwhile that the Church suffers every scandal for the sake of his own popularity; or he is so much the obedient puppet of the sodomite mafia that he does not dare to cross them; not even when the filth is there for everyone to see, and the stink goes up to heaven.
Kudos to Magister, then, for the very special act of courage of reminding his readers of how Ricca represents all that is wrong with this papacy; a papacy so wrong, that it doesn’t even want to be called with its own name.
When G.W. Bush bombed some sense into Iraq without any definitive proof of massive chemical weapons held there, the entire socialist/pacifist/alternative/perverted world couldn't feel good enough condemning him. Mind: Saddam was a man whose cruelty was above suspicion, and who had already practiced genocide on a terrifying scale. The most dangerous man on the planet, bar none.
This time there is, again, no smoking gun that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons; the scale of the alleged attack is, for what it's worth, infinitely smaller; and yes, the Syrian government poses thousand obstacles to a proper analysis of what is going on; but so did Saddam. And yes, they probably did it; but so Saddam wanted everyone to believe – inside and outside his country – that he did have the potential for devastating, genocidal attacks.
One begins to notice. When “hope and change” bombs away a regime without proof, everything is fine. When Dubya does the same with an infinitely more dangerous opponent, he is the Cosmic Bastard.
Mr “Hope and Change” will bring on the wrongest possible change, and possibly put the Christian in Syria in a hopeless situation. The Western intervention will bomb, first of all, the hope of Christians in Syria for a peaceful life.
I can't avoid thinking the intervention spells the end of Assad's regime. I will not cry for the bastard. I will cry for Syria's Christians. Even bastards have their use.
And no, I do not condone the use of chemical weapon. If I were the POTUS, I would help Assad's regime so they are not in such dire straits as to use them. If it means being on the same side as Hizbollah, amen to that. You can't have Christians killed and forced to flee just because you don't like Iran. A strong Presidency would have dozens occasions to punish Iran without Syria's Christians being put in such an Islamist hell as the one that will reign – though the BBC won't tell you – after Assad's gone.
Yes, there are risks in this. There are risks in pretty much flippin' everything one does in the region. But heavens, if Western powers do not have an eye for the situation of those poor Christians in Syria, in Egypt, in Lybia, in Iraq who will care for them: the Islamists?
“Invented from alpha to omega” is how Archbishop Gaenswein described the rumours about the Pontiff Emeritus' alleged “mystical visions” (many of them).
I have already dedicated a blog post to this, and warned from falling into the trap of those fake Catholics trying to create a new Magisterium, made “infallible” by the Holy Ghost's alleged endorsement of Pope Francis.
Well, now it's official. From the mouth of the de facto speaker of the Pontiff Emeritus himself.
This reminds me of the idiot who left a message in my combox accusing me of being so evil that I do not read the signs of the Holy Ghost, and blasphemous in stating that God is immutable (never read Aquinas, of course).
From the rumours they are ready to believe you will recognise them.
I expect abject apologies from Zenit, who first spread the rumour. I personally would also be interested in knowing the source of this revelation, because the suspicion the sodomite mafia had a finger in this is more than legitimate.
I somewhat doubt either will happen.
“One in three women will have an abortion by the time they’re 45, and yet we’re treating this like it’s some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than even having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common,” said Kari Ross, who is the spokeswoman for the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF).
I read this here.
Let me rephrase it.
“One in three European Jews will have a death by Holocaust by 1945, and yet we're treating the Final Solution like it's some extreme procedure, when it can be a lot safer than having your wisdom teeth removed, and is almost just as common”.
To them, an abortion is something harmless just because it happens millions of times.
I doubt even Dr Goebbels would show such lack of humanity.
The Nazis are among us.
From The Democratic Platform
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right
From the Republican Platform
Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
I can’t help thinking of Abp Annibale Bugnini writing the Missal of Paul VI and composing the present Lectionary through a haze of whatever was smoked in 60s. Maybe I am being unfair and he didn’t smoke anything but the Pauline Lectionary has a decided 60s feel to it. The image of God, of Jesus is not organic, it has the feel of one particular period in history, to me it is decidedly Beatnik to early Hippie. If it hadn’t been compiled after two World Wars and the Holocaust it would probably have been quite different, if Bugnini or Paul VI had been different types of men the image of God presented to us would be quite different. Because fundamentally it is their image of God, it is not the image that St Thomas Becket, St Francis, St John of the Cross, St John Vianney, or Padre Pio met every day at the altar.
The OF Lectionary presents us with a new theology; the ancient Lectionary formed the theology of the Church, it was an unchanging ‘given’. What Bugnini produced was very much the product of the Council and 20th century theology. It comes from the same school that applied the scalpel to excise the cursing psalm, that separated that bit about eating and drinking one’s own condemnation from the Epistle for Corpus Christi and so many other bits and pieces that they were uncomfortable with, that simply did not reflect the theological fashion of the time.
Yes, we now have a lot more scripture but it is carefully selected, carefully edited and from a very particular time in Church history and produced by very strange men indeed, some of whom were quite unsaintly, who had their own image of God they wanted to impose on the Church.
These excellent words reflect in a very beautiful way the problem of modern Liturgy concerning the way it transmits the Faith. It does it confusedly, wrongly, and one-sidedly.
There was a time – in the first years of comparing the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo – in which I thought the vastly more extensive readings of the latter would be an advantage compared with the older form.
Only slowly I have come to the conclusion that a deformed tree can never have straight branches, and what at first sight might seem good turns out after a more attentive examination to be faulty.
Yes, there are more scriptures in the Novus Ordo. But the faithful sitting in the old pews knew the doctrine much better, had a much better grasp of the Scriptures in what really counts – that is: the ordering of their own and their loved’ lives – and had less Scripture at Mass simply because the Gospel and the other readings were not there to teach the faithful what the Scripture says, but to drive home a point in a short, forceful way.
Some readings of the Tridentine Mass are just a few lines. But those few lines drive a spear through your heart. It is a lightning, not a school lesson.
For now more than forty years, one and a half generation of faithful have been served the extensive Mass readings of the Novus Ordo, but their knowledge of the very basic truths of Catholicism is so dismal that illiterate peasants of, say, France circa 1850 would shame them day in and day out. Those simple people probably didn’t have any meaningful or extensive knowledge of the Old Testament, but they knew perfectly well about life and death, heaven and hell, sin and repentance, rebellion and obedience, normality and perversion, morality and scandal. I am absolutely sure when they died they had a better hand of cards than many cafeteria Catholics of today; and mind, it is not that they weren’t sinful, either.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Again, if the tree is bad the fruits will not be good, and if the liturgy is disfigured it is only a matter of time until the faith of the pewsitter is disfigured, too.
Very probably, neither Father Blake nor your humble correspondent will ever know whatever Bugnini & Co. smoked, but I suspect that in the mixture there must have been a good dose of accommodation, arrogance, irreligiousness, or outright faithlessness.
That Ezequiel “El Poncho” Lavezzi did not enjoy the privilege of proper breeding is not the reason for this blog post. His effrontery in sitting on the papal (or I should say “episcopal”) throne, having himself photographed, and even posting the picture on social media sites is not new. I read about the fact, and saw the photo, at the time, but life's too short and I chose to write about other issues.
What I would like to stress today is not the boorish and disrespectful behaviour of the above mentioned “Poncho”, but the astonishing reaction of many either around him, or reading the news, and what the episode tells us about the man occupying – ahem, almost exclusively – the throne.
The Vatican has guards, I am told. People whose job is, erm, to guard something. I am sure they know how to do their job. That they failed to prevent such antics can only be attributed to their persuasion that they would have been rebuked by Francis if they had enforced proper conduct. It is not unreasonable – in fact, it is very, very reasonable – to assume if the guards has enforced the protocol Francis would have rebuked them as too rigid and too formal, and would have asked them to allow the boys to have some fun and take some photos; we are joyous people who don't do such things as minding propriety and counting rosaries, eh, ah, no? The guards look stupid, the bishop looks good, the idiots rejoice. Everything normal, then.
Almost as bad as the climate created by Francis is the behaviour of those who write comments on Catholic sites and minimise the fact. Boors themselves (like “El Poncho”) they just don't get it, or play dumb so that they do not have to.
Symbols are powerful, and if one wants to destroy or damage an institution one must attack its symbols.
Pope Francis knows it, which is why he attacks the institution of the Papacy through its very symbols as much as he can: the “bishop of Rome” meme, the refusal to wear the Mozzetta or the red shoes, or the repeated shows of simplicity are all meant to reach a double effect: undermine the institution as they extol the man.
The uneducated elements – who are the vast majority – immediately pick the message, and have nothing to say against a footballer sitting on the Throne of Peter. A throne, as Sandro Magister points out, unfit for Beethoven but fit for Ezequiel “El Poncho” Lavezzi. Unsurprisingly, most don't have a problem with it.
This is a papacy for boors, and philistines.
They'll enjoy Francis all right.
You might not have read my blog post about the big drip, but we have now another demonstration of how it works.
Margherita Hack had all the wrong ideas. It was very easy: if something was wrong, Margherita Hack was very likely to be in favour of it.
Militant atheist. Animal right activist. Supporter of perversion. Communist candidate. Euthanasia fan.
Margherita Hack kicked the bucket earlier today in Trieste at the ripe age of 91 extremely ill spent years, and one way or the other (actually, the one is far more probable than the other) she now knows better.
I have found no sign whatsoever of a possible conversion, or even of the beginning of it. Whilst we can have no absolute certainty, your betting a pint on the female having escaped damnation would be, if you ask me, an extremely foolish move.
Another day, another tool of…
View original post 47 more words
A certain view of Pope Benedict’s resignation goes along the lines of the Pontiff Emeritus having resigned as a consequence of “pressures”, or even having been “forced” to resign. In this second case, his successor would not be the legitimate… bishop of Rome.
I do not think these theories have any solid fundament in reality. Allow me to explain why.
A Pope, like every powerful man, is under pressure all the time. Unavoidably, he – and they – will be surrounded by people having different ideas about the course he should take on this or that matter; some of them will be in good faith, and other won’t. It’s all par for the course.
What is not par for the course is a Pope that suddenly begins to do stupid things just because he is put under “pressure” to do so. Pope Ratzinger had a decade-long experience of positions of power; nothing, absolutely nothing of the office life of a powerful man could have been unknown to him. Powerful people know how it works. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be powerful.
The idea of a Ratzinger just deciding that the time has arrived to think with other people’s head, and do what he thinks wrong because others say so, is just untenable and, I add, disrespectful of the former Pontiff, seen as a Romulus Augustulus rather than a true Prince of the Church.
Be it as it may, it might in all cases never be denied that a man who chooses to bend to exterior pressure is himself responsible for his behaviour. Ubi honor, Ibi onus. There is no way Pope Ratzinger might have taken such a decision without bearing all its responsibility. So we are at square one.
Even more absurd is the second hypothesis: that the Pope was “forced”. How do you “force” a Pope to do something he does not want to do? Is our esteem for Benedict so low that we consider him able to bend to, say, the threat of physical violence, or blackmail? What fear of death may a man of 83 have, a Pope to boot? And who on earth would be in a position to threaten or blackmail him without being immediately arrested? Again, this theory is, when reflected upon, even more offensive for the Pontiff Emeritus, who is then seen as having fears for his life, open to blackmail, and outright cowardly. It makes the same sense as to imagine that extraterrestrials would have visited the Pope and said to him either he resigns or they will invade and destroy the Earth in order to devote it to the cultivation of their favourite mushrooms.
No, it doesn’t make sense. What also does not make sense are these equilibrist’s exercises by which every time the Pontiff does something we do not approve of, the reason for it must be looked elsewhere: typically, the culprits are chosen among the “wolves”, as if a Pope could not send all of them to Uganda at three hours’ notice, and as if there were only one of them who is allowed to exert influence on him for even thirty second without his consent.
In addition, this second theory hides a terrible menace to Catholicism: ad libitum Sedevacantism.
If every time we have a bad Pope we start to theorise that the former Pope might have been “forced” to resign (or have been poisoned, or the like) and therefore the current Pope not validly elected, or the result of murderous scheming, we will create an army of Sunday Sedevacantists who think they can decide, by every Pontificate, whether it is a legitimate one or the Sea is vacant. This in itself is a worse danger than every Papal resignation, and can cause immense damage by weakening the dignity and authority of the Papacy.
If I think that I can freely decide whether the Pope is Pope (say, because I have become persuaded the last Pope was illicitly disposed of), it is fair to say I am the last one who can call himself Catholic.
My suggestion is that we leave the conspiracy fantasies where they belong: to the old cranks, the Sunday Novelists and the Vodka Vaticanists – of whom there will never be any scarcity – and start to respect the Papacy, the Popes and common sense.
Benedict “forced” to resign? Seriously, the “extraterrestrial” theory makes more sense.
We live in terrible times for a Catholic; a time in which not only the… Bishop of Rome is very bad (this has often happened in the past, as I will never tire to point out), but the news of how bad he is goes around the world in minutes. We are, therefore, subject to challenges our ancestors did not have. One of the results of this disgraceful Papacy will be to undermine the prestige of the office, and the devil will try to use this to persuade the faithful that the Church is not the Church, or the Pope is not the Pope, or both.
We, who are good and well instructed Caholics, react to such a temptation. We stay faithful to the Only Church as we bemoan Her miserable state, and we stay faithful to the… Bishop of Rome and to the Papacy he does not even want to mention, because as good Catholics we side with the Papacy even when the Pope is an utter disgrace.
Beware the temptation of escaping the drama that is unfolding under our eyes by fleeing to a fantasy world made of non-popes, of “poping wolves”, or of outlandish theories of Vatican Fiction. The reality is bad enough. It is a Cross we are called to carry. Let’s carry it denouncing every falsehood and scandal, but staying faithful to the institutions of the Church and the Papacy.
Don’t believe the rumours. Believe the facts.
The fact is that the Pontiff Emeritus has said that he did not have the strength, both spiritual and physical, to continue his job as Pope. That’s what he said.
Now there are third-hand, unnamed rumours according to which Benedict would have had a mystical experience (actually many months long; heavy stuff, then…) at the end of which he felt inspired to live a life totally dedicated to prayer.
This already strange news – from, let us say it again, an unnamed source – is made even stranger by the other follow-up rumour, that Benedict would have recognised even more, after “witnessing the charisma” of Francis, that his stepping down was “the will of God”.
God’s will doesn’t change like the one of a sixteen year old girl, so it remains to be explained how Benedict would justify saying “my successor does all the contrary of what I do, but he has “charisma”, so it must be the will of God that he is now the Pope”. It does not make sense from a purely logical point of view, but it makes even less sense if you think Popes are elected at God’s bidding (they aren’t: the Pope is elected by those chaps in red called the Cardinals. Don’t blame God for the Cardinals’ mistakes, irreligious attitude, cowardice, corruption or outright criminal attitude).
If God positively decides who becomes Pope, than this must be a very strange God, positively imposing several dozens of appallingly secular or outright criminal people to His own flock. He would also be as fickle as the above mentioned girl, having decided in 2005 for Ratzinger against Bergoglio and now saying “on second thoughts, Joseph, that in 2005 might have been, like, kinda mistake. I’d rather have the other chap. Would you mind to step down? Please?”.
If you ask me, this is uncontrolled bollocks spread by those who want to give Francis the quality seal “officially endorsed by the Holy Ghost”.
Don’t believe the rumours.
When, and only when, Benedict says publicly that Francis is the man hand picked by the Holy Ghost to be Pope, call a doctor and don’t believe a word anymore of what he says; then in that case it would be clear the good man has clearly gone the sad way of John Paul II; gone, in fact, to the point of insulting the Holy Ghost and the Papacy at the same time. A Koran-kissing Pope, Mk II.
Heavens, can it really be that we live in such stupid times that basic Truth can be undermined by this kind of third-rate bollocks by hearsay? Can it truly be that there are people not only simple enough to think God wanted (as opposed to “allowed”) that the likes of Benedict IX and Leo X, of Liberius and John XXII, and of many others, become Pope, but even that in doing so God would not be able to let even eight years pass without radically, erm, changing His mind?
Such a hypothetical God wouldn’t be believable in a kindergarten, but it must be obviously just the ticket of the V II “revolution” crowd. If the narrative of the “hand picked by the Holy Ghost” were to swallowed by the faithful, we would have a new infallible magisterium, but endowed with a, erm, more recent and “fresher” infallibility than the original one! “Hey, Francis was the man picked by the Holy Ghost with his own hands! How can every blasphemy, heresy or stupid novelty he says not be the new will of God?”.
God is immutable. God never changes His mind, or His rules. If He did, He wouldn’t be God, because the very idea of mutation, of change, of transition is in contradiction with the idea of total, omnipotent perfection that must perforce be an essential element of God. If it is God, it does not change His mind. Whatever changes his mind, can never be God.
If anyone says or implies God “changes his mind” tell him to wash his mouth, and that he deserves to be slapped.
Don’t believe the bollocks by hearsay.
And it came to pass President Obama Bin Laden tried to put pressure on the Egyptian rulers by cutting part of the (substantial) aid the Country receives, and found himself with the face against a solid wall of opposition not only from Israel, but from countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, who cannot see with favour incendiary fanatics staying in power in such a key country like Egypt and thereby destabilising the entire region.
It seems like the local governments understand very well where the danger lies; whilst Obama, half a planet away, is more concerned with looking good with his rather cretinous “hope and change” electorate than with promoting stability in the region.
That Obama doesn't care two straws for persecuted Christians was already known; he is, in fact, a cultural Muslim without the faith, forced to frequent a nominally Christian church merely because of his political ambitions. What is interesting, is that in many Middle Eastern Countries the US will now be seen as the enemy of stability, and the helper of Islamist fanatics.
But will the Gay President, at least, succeed? We do not know, but the signs aren't good. I read around that several countries (mainly, I assume, oil rich ones) will step in to integrate the aid loss now announced. This will make the countries that have stepped in double angry, and the Obama administration will have to think twice before they go on with the aid Spiel. In the end, someone will probably tell him that “hope and change” games won't go far in the Middle East, and the open hostility of traditionally allied countries is far more probable. What a sorry mess this marketing – driven foreign policy has put the old US of A in…
Congratulations, Obama Bin.
You manage to surprise us again and again.
The blog of EF Pastor Emeritus reported, a week or so ago, about the situation of the Irish priests. They are, we are informed, treated badly by their bishops: no security of a permanent position as parish priest; no explanation or consultation before a transfer; at times, even immediate removal if one happens to seriously cross the bishop. This is why the poor priests – once such a joyous image of laughter, and spreading happiness wherever they went – are now despondent and discouraged, and their pint of Guinness doesn't taste anymore how it used to. How sad.
One must sympathise with the poor employees of the Ministry Of Empty Slogans. Their superiors aren't as good to them as they Once were. In normal circumstances, their security of position in a certain location does not exceed… nine years! And this even considering that the employees are very much liked by the general public (even those not seen very often in the Ministry's corridors), whilst their superiors aren't very much liked, are they now… How cruel and insensitive the higher echelons of the Ministry Of Empty Slogans are…
Alas, there is a little problem in the entire reasoning.
The employees aren't really such. They are priests. They have solemnly and publicly stated they are willing to die for Christ, not to be willing to have safe and cosy fixed employment for life. They are the ones supposed to make themselves unpopular and uncomfortable, but in the end respected, instead of wearing their “popularity” among swindling, poorly instructed and uncaring faithful as if it were a badge of honour. It's not a marketing, or a popularity exercise.
On the contrary, it is highly indicative that a generation of priests who has managed to completely ravish Catholicism in their own country should complain about their lack of security and extol their popularity in comparison to their bishops', just in the weeks in which abortion measures are adopted in a country utterly and completely deserted by its disgraceful, cowardly clergy.
I do not expect that a priest wakes up in the morning wishing for martyrdom, as we are all humans and God will inspire all the martyrs he needs anyway. What I find astonishing is that just in the weeks in which the utter and complete failure of the Irish clergy are exposed in front of the entire Catholic planet, these people should complain about a job security going on for merely nine years – a security for which many laymen in England would not give an arm, but probably consider giving away one little finger – and call to their defence the fact they are “liked”, as if this desire to be liked wasn't the cause of the utter decay of Catholicism in the country in the first place. Absurdly, they complain that their bishops… want to be liked.
And so the likes of us – people who recognised they do not have a vocation, and whose job security is generally one to three months – must read about the lack of ministerial desk security of the very same people who have, let us say it again, utterly and completely demolished Catholicism in the once so faithful Ireland. Whilst Rome burns they are not only fiddling, but complaining about the quality of the fiddle.
Perhaps a collective transfer to Uganda, or Syria, or Libya, or Egypt, or India would do them a lot of good.
Now, the priest blogger who wrote the above mentioned post is certainly a good priest and a good blogger, and I therefore want to hope at least some of his Irish acquaintances will be the same. But he presented the situation as a general Irish problem, and it is therefore more than fitting to look at the situation in general, and to consider what the Irish clergy have done to their own Country. They have raped it, that's what they have done to it; but they complain about the occasional suppository prescribed by their doctor, the bishop. Not that the bishop is better than they are, of course. He is merely higher in the hierarchy, and the one who can prescribe the suppository to his fellow rapists. What goes around…
And so one must read about the job security whining of these employees of the Ministry Of Empty Words (which might be appropriately called Ministry Of Catholicism' Rape) just when abortion is being – after decades of popularity contest, and ministry desk occupancy – introduced in the land. One reads such complaints and has no doubt whatever about why Ireland is where it is now.
Enjoy your suppository, dear Irish priests. It is merely a small hint of the much bigger punishment waiting for many of you.
Many thanks to Gerard Brady for pointing me out to an Eponymous Flower blog post exposing an internet site shamelessly dedicated to the provision of “dating services” to homosexual priests, in several languages.
I never thought I’d see the day, that’s all. Such is the extent of the devastation the endemic stupidity of the post-Vatican II era has caused.
I read around this Pope will be judged by history according to his ability of dealing with the restructuring of the Curia.
I’d rather say this Pope will be judged by history (and from the Lord above) according to his energy in dealing with sexual perversion within and without Church structures.
It was a sunny Sunday afternoon, of those that reconcile you with life in England. Walking toward the underground station after seeing some friends, I was walking in one of those elegant squares with the cafes/brasseries where most people (including yours truly) cannot afford to eat.
On the pavement in front of one of these elegant brasseries, a shocking sight was attracting the attention.
The most shocking, most disgusting person I have ever seen (read this again: it's not an exaggeration) was talking animatedly on his mobile phone. He was a frightful sight. Extremely thin and extremely pale, his hollow and cadaveric face screamed “drug addict”. He was dressed not only like a faggot, but like a faggot who wants to look as disgusting as possible; an über-faggot, so to speak.The most shocking detail was his hair, that was cut in a sodomitical fashion at the front but extremely short at the back, up to the top of his skull, as if with the intent of looking as repulsive as possible. Thinking back, one believes that there are people out there who eat shit.
I admit that I have lived a rather sheltered life, and am proud to say I saw my first drug addict at nineteen, remaining shocked the rest of the day. But now I am over fifty, and the like of that wreck I had never seen; not in the underground of Frankfurt or Berlin, and not in many years of Greater London.
It was truly shocking. It was like seeing one who was living in the midst of excrements, and insisting in showing all his degradation to the world. He did not see the scared or disgusted faces of the customers of the cafe (most Brits are such that they would look elsewhere if in the sight of him), and I think after a long experience of such faces he probably did not care anymore how people looked at him. As he was talking animatedly, in an alarmed and whining way, people like me (who do “judging” a lot, because they have a brain and refuse to switch it off; macht nichts, I couldn't become Pope anyway) could not avoid thinking this was a male prostitute in a very advanced state of drug addiction suddenly informed that his client was gone, and his fix with him; or something of such like, edifying nature.
As it happens when one sees a shocking sight, my brain started to pose questions: how is it possible that a human being reduces himself in such a state; what would be the trauma of a child confronted with such a revolting spectacle; how many people have seen this man drowning and have said nothing; is he truly responsible for reducing himself in such a state. The answers that kept coming to my mind were “very probably drugs”, “a great one”, “probably very many” and “without the shadow of a doubt”.
Each one of those answers would be, methinks, worthy of a blog post. Here, I'd like to dwell on the third one.
When I was a child, we were not confronted with such people. Drug addicts were certainly there, but the freedom to do and leave whatever one wanted without fear of reprisal was just not there. A person going on the street in broad daylight dressed in such a way would have had children throwing stones at him (the less impressionable ones; those who torture cats, for example), the police stopping and harassing them, and in general a total societal refusal. This chap could obviously reduce himself in that state, because a society that does not dare to “judge” will never have a harsh word for anyone, much less a pervert. The perverted illness of the man also shows the moral bankruptcy of a society that allows (stupid) people to sink in such pits of abjection without offering more than the usual tolerance, inclusiveness, and obligatory niceness.
In a morally ordered society, you don't see such people on the street, shocking even adults. They would be forced to dress differently, to behave differently and, to an extent, to think differently. All this will, of course, never completely eradicate sexual perversion, or drug use. But an ordered society will make what is in its part to at least create unfavourable conditions for such behaviour, and to help the stupid and weak not to stray through a ruthless process of societal control; that is, well, “judgment”.
No, I will not close my eyes to reality and say to myself “perhaps he wasn't a disgusting faggot, just a chap with an extravagant taste”, or “how can you say he was a drug addict? Perhaps he had merely slept badly”, or the worst of them all, the one that helps people to become faggots or drug addicts if so inclined: “who are you to judge?”.
I am so fed up with a rotten society so proud of its illness. I have the pockets full of this “non-judgmental” society positively helping people to kill themselves. I am sick and tired of a world that ridicules one for mentioning the fear of the Lord, but positively helps idiots like the one above to kill themselves slowly, and possibly not even so slowly, and damn their soul in the process.
In pure Un-Francis (the Bishop, not the Saint) style, expect a lot of “judgment” on this blog whenever scandal is given and the stupidity of the modern heathen society must be exposed.
We are all sinners, and this was always so. But in more intelligent times people understood the difference between private weakness and public scandal, took care not to upset the children (and the adults), enforced a code of proper conduct with great energy, and would have laughed at the politically correct crap of our times.
I know, the Bishop of Rome disagrees. Who is he to judge? Well he is a disgraceful, scandalous Pope, and I for one am the one to say it out loud. Feel good with yourselves by insulting me, the reality on the ground remains.
More non-judgmental people means more people helped to become like the human wretch of this post. Their own fault in the end, no doubt, but we as a society must discourage them as forcefully as we can instead of letting them sink, and probably go to hell, because we want to feel good with ourselves.
Impressive experience yesterday, at a Novus Ordo church I will not mention.
The start was very bad, as for the first time since attending in England I had to endure a guitar, which made the usually atrocious hymns even more atrocious.
I prepare myself for a horrible experience when the priest appears. Like more and more priests in these part, the man is African, though his strong accent does not make the understanding difficult. Father is young, big and tall, and his assertive, masculine tone immediately makes clear this is not your Father Pansy.
Where things really become surprising was by the homily. Never, outside of the Brompton Oratory, had I heard the like. Taking inspiration from the the gospel reading, Father invites with thundering voice to defy, and in case quarrel, even with our closest family members in defending Christianity's values.
He spoke with a very loud, thundering voice, and if he ever was a timid child, this was a long time ago. He spoke, if you allow me the arrogance, like one who reads this blog every day, albeit it would be more appropriate to say “like one who cares for Catholicism”. It was clear, though unsaid, that the impact with the British society must have been rather traumatic.
It was like a black Don Camillo thundering from the pulpit, and I kept wondering how this could be reconciled with the guitar, and the atrocious hymns. Perhaps he is new and must wait some time before he strikes, I thought; or perhaps he, being African, doesn't really understand our beautiful musical tradition and follows the “colourful” musical arrangements of that Continent. At the time of distributing communion a third hypothesis could be made, as a far older white priest came out to help with the distribution (in cassock! The man was wearing a cassock!) and I thought the older priest might be in charge, and be the more accommodating type.
I had been in that church before, and the two priests I temember were different ones: the one was rather good but still too V II, and the other very probably a homo. The new team was certainly different, but again it was the Black Don Camillo who was highly impressive.
“These are the people who inspire vocations”, I could not help thinking. His passion, energy and candor, but also the assured manliness of his behaviour, must send to every boy the message that priesthood is fitting for real men, and if you aren't one you have no business in even thinking of becoming a priest. Noticeably, there were no altar girls, either.
If it had not been for the damn guitar and the blasted hymns, I would have thought shameless Catholic reaction is here openly at work. Perhaps, though, the matter is much simpler: there is great need for priests, and these priests come largely from Africa; and boy, they do Catholicism.
My impression is that a young priest who has risked the stick in his own country is not really afraid of the bishop, or of the old petty women in the parish council, when he moves to England. His vocation has been already tested far more than most of our bishops will ever dream of. To him, “sensitivity” squabbles must seem as stupid as… they actually are.
This is not the first time I notice when the NO parish priest is a young African the chances he's good are very high, and when he is a sixty-something English smiling champion they are very low. Give this country another fifteen or twenty years, and priests like this Black Don Camillo will become very common. I'd love to see what the bishop can do, then, to keep them silent, and that might also be the time when vocations start to increase in earnest.
Salvation for this country, now tragically sinking in an ocean of stupidity, political correctness and compulsive niceness, may well come from Africa.
In time, they'll get it right with the music, too.
And it came to pass that yours truly was at a pedestrian crossing, waiting for the green light.
Two women stood near me. One with the habit of a nun, and a big wooden cross leaving no doubt – even in this country of many faiths and none – about her allegiance. The other of about the same age (Seventy, perhaps), and sporting the now rather usual “slob look”: trainers' trousers, t-shirt, and trainer shoes.
Being Italian, I am aesthetically minded, and could therefore not avoid noticing how the long habit of the nun gave her a so much better appearance than her friend's, whose several rolls of fat bobbed in slowly oscillating waves under the t-shirt at her every step as her rather massive backside transferred his considerable weight on either leg, and whose general appearance and demeanour was clearly, as already stated, the one of a slob.
“Look”, I thought, “how the traditional way of dressing gives the nun a graceful and gentle appearance her friend probably does not even see, or for which she does not care”. It was very clear, as I looked at them walking before me, that had the nun been dressed in the same way as her walking companion she would have had pretty much the same rolls of fat, and the same backside movements, on show, albeit probably slightly reduced. The wisdom of past times has seen to that, and has provided for a clothing style allowing an aged woman to appear graceful, and a rather gentle sight, even when time had worked on her female form.
Only later – I am rather slow at times – the thought occurred to me that the woman showing her bobbing rolls of fat and painfully oscillating buttocks for all London to see might, in fact, have been… a nun too. A nun without cross, without witness of her Christian faith – if any left -, and pretty much without a sense of propriety, visiting a friend of another (and more serious) order on a Sunday.
I will never know, of course, then even if the thought had occurred to me in time I am not yet so angered at the decay of Christianity that I would openly challenge an old woman on the street and ask her whether what she is carrying around in that fashion is the body of a nun, and whether she think this is the appropriate way of giving witness of the fact.
Still, allow me to express some sympathy for the old woman wearing her nun's habit and her big wooden cross; and going, I am confident, just as gracefully through life as she walked on the street of post-Christian London, on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
This article, on a translation appeared on The Eponymous Flower, is the best piece of Catholic news I have read in some time.
Seen in context and weighing all the evidence and the sources, the main issue of the article appears incontrovertible: Christianity is on the march in many prevalently Muslim countries. We see here Christ at work under our eyes: the persecuted Church is the Church at its strongest and irresistible in Her advance; an advance paved by the suffering and the blood of Her martyrs.
It must not surprise that such news never make the mainstream outlets: not only is this extremely politically incorrect news for the champagne faggots in BBC style, but it is also a phenomenon that would, for obvious reasons, very seldom be mentioned in the Arab mainstream media.
I also agree with the author of the article when he says the answer to Islam can never be the supposed enlightenment of the secular world, but rather the provision of religious truth in place of religious falsehood. A godless “progress” can never quench spiritual thirst.
Read the article, and smile. Christ is not stopped by stupid clergy. He will punish us in the West because we have deserved the punishment – how hard He will punish our bad clergymen does not bear thinking -, but at the same time he will care that whenever the Church is persecuted she, in times, grows stronger.
Providence at work, and another example just under our eyes of how the Church works; even in the midst of destruction from inside, or persecution from outside.
The “dialogue” Reblog
“In this pluralistic situation, we have no other option than consciously cultivating friendly relationships with all of them based on mutual respect and understanding that eventually could lead to mutual collaboration for the common good, for peace and harmony towards the development of the society. This is all what interreligious dialogue is about: Being rooted in our own faith, cultivating, despite differences, harmonious relationships among believers of diverse religions and collaborating with them for the good of humanity with shared values and convictions.”
These aren’t my words, but those of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council of Inter-religious Dialogue.
One is reminded of Jesus’ words:
“Go ye therefore, and dialogue with all nations, making friends among them and collaborating with them in the name of humanity”
Or perhaps it was:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the…
View original post 472 more words
Some hours ago, the sky was a solid wall of dark grey. The mind reflecting on the fast decay of Christian values all over the West was only encouraged to abandon itself to gloomy presages of devastation of Christianity in the First World. One – well, perhaps not everyone; but certainly yours truly – was led to dwell on the thoughts of bishops dancing, hopping and rotating like a bunch of old senile idiots whilst Rome burns.
As I write these lines, a glorious blue sky graces this Friday afternoon, and spreads a peculiar magic in the air; the more beautiful, because unexpected. With it, the clouds have gone from my mind. Perhaps I should not pray that there be no devastation and persecution, but that every devastation that cannot be avoided may be – as it unavoidably will be – for the greater glory of God, and every persecution that God sends us may be accompanied by the grace necessary to bear it well, as good Christians and in good spirit.
Perhaps, though, all this will not be necessary. Perhaps the West will react once again, and will recover sanity at last. I often think of how fast and how hard the balloon of “man-made global warming” got smashed to the ground here in Europe, and cannot avoid thinking that the fickle fashions of modern society change with great alacrity. I seem to see here and there some sign of this; you may call it wishful thinking and perhaps it is, but it started little with the “globbal uormin' ” madness, too…
Perhaps it is just this glorious weather… or perhaps the Blessed Virgin smiles on us sinful, but sincere Catholics…
The thought is more beautiful than every Friday afternoon, “surprise blue” sky.