Monthly Archives: September 2013
It is, as always, difficult to know what generic affirmations really mean – better said: you know what they mean; you do not know to what extent the intent will become concrete action – but if what is brewing is what is hinted at in this “Homograph” article, we are in for a mess on a planetary scale.
The core is issue is the one described below:
“Cardinal Maradiaga is hinting that the Pope is asking the fundamental question: What can be decided in Rome and what at local level? How can the Roman Curia serve bishops instead of being an office of censure and control?”
Note the two concepts:
1. The Roman curia should “serve” the Bishops. I thought the Roman Curia should control them and pay attention that they transmit the faith whole. A huge shift of power might be taking place here, with the dioceses making their own soup according to local recipes and Rome not daring to question either the nourishment or the flavour.
2. The very same fact that today Rome direct things is seen as “censure and control”. For the avoidance of doubt, both have here a negative connotation. It is bad that Rome controls, and it is bad that Rome censures. Rome’s power of control and censure must be, therefore, reduced.
You see already where this is going: a paradise for Pinocchio liturgists, where everyone makes things according to what the “Spirit” decides it is “best” locally, and the Pope happily presiding over this liturgical and doctrinal cacophony whilst kissing people on wheelchairs. Those from whom the worst problems have come (the local liberal dioceses) are then set free to give their own shape certainly to the liturgy, and probably to important parts of the teaching; like, say, not being “obsessed” with this, or being “dynamic” on that (communion for “remarried”, say).
Too clever by half, Cardinal Maradiaga tries to impress us with the example of the Japanese, a language which almost no one in the West masters. But his little kindergarten trick does not hide the fact that if the Vatican can’t decide over the very words with which the Latin blueprint must be translated in the local languages, abuses of all kinds will soon mushroom in all liberal dioceses, creating a confusion of almost Presbyterian proportions in perhaps less of a generation, or until a Pope decides to go back to sanity again.
What appears immediate in the Liturgy – and the example of Cardinal Maradiaga directly refers to it – must perforce be true in the teaching: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Make a mess of the liturgy and the theology will go to the dogs just as surely. Look at the … bishop of Rome of the Pinocchio Mass and tell me if his Lex Credendi is any better than his Lex Orandi.
We will see how much of these, admittedly, easily said slogans are going to be translated in practice. Still, Francis had, for example, already hinted he would prefer heresies and dissent should be dealt with at diocesan level – by the heretical and dissenting bishop, it is to be supposed -, so one seems to understand where he comes from and what his idea of orthodoxy is.
Early days, and I might be wrong; but it seems to me that a program of dismantling of what, inefficient as it is, is still the most effective brake to heresy – a Roman curia with the power to intervene everywhere, and decide about the details of the liturgy – is being implemented with a true revolutionary spirit.
Some of you will know Che Guevara was, actually, Argentinian.
For some reason Rodrigo Borgia, better known as Pope Alexander VI, seems to have reached the status of “worst Pope ever” among Catholics and Anti-Catholics alike.
Whilst the man represented many of the shortcomings of his age, and not even nowadays’ spinmeisters would dare to call him a saintly man, it is remarkable how the man allows Popes like Liberius, or Benedict IX, or John XXII to go unnoticed among the masses. Actually, in most cases if people don’t shoot at Alexander they will shoot at, say, Julius II or Leo X. All Renaissance Popes, you see. It catches the imagination. Sex, War, and Sacred Music. Still, all orthodox ones.
There is, if you ask me, a frequent mistake here, present in a rather extreme way: the confusion of the moral qualities of a man with the way he exercised his office.
No one seems much interested in the fact that, say, Churchill drank like a fish. What they are interested in is how he did his job as Prime Minister, and his private failures are considered a private problem of his exactly as his public work had a very public dimension.
This should, always if you ask me, apply even more to a Pope. If it is true that the business of saving England is of far more consequence than the private failings of the British Prime Minister, then it must be the more true that the business of being the Vicar of Christ with all this entails – worldwide evangelisation, say; or the fight against the world’s values – is of far more consequence than the business of saving England. If every souls has, being infinite, infinite value, then the business of the salvation of souls is an infinitely more important business than the salvation of Britain.
A corrupt Renaissance Pope certainly did put his soul in danger, and certainly did go to hell if he died in state of mortal sin. We cannot know with certainty about anyone of them – not even of Alexander VI – but the impressive string of very bad Popes between, say, the X and the XV century allows us to tell that very probably a number of them did not escape hell.
Such a bad Pope lost, then, his own soul. He did, in case, contribute to the loss of many other souls in his entourage. But in those times there was no Internet or Facebook, no Twitter or even CNN, not even much literacy. The private failings of a Pope were specifically known to a restricted number of people, most of them of the educated sort. Still, most people died with the same faith, the same rules, the same Mass and the same certainties with which they were born. Their world revolved around the Truths of their Faith, with which no Pope dared, or even thought, to tamper. In the economy of their own salvation, the private conduct of the Pope was pretty much near to zero.
Yes, the peasant might have known that high prelates were corrupt, but it’s not that he did not have experience of corrupted powerful men in his own environment – or that he was an angel himself, in most cases -. Yes, it might be said that the corruption of the Church was an element in the march of the great Heresies of the XVI century; but again, every illiterate peasant knew, when he rebelled to the Church, what he was doing, and note no one was more justified in being an heretic then than he is today, and many clergymen and Popes were very corrupted for many centuries before the XVI. Again, the private conduct of the Popes did not enter the life of the common people. They knew God’s rules applied to the powerful clergy as well as to everyone else, and that was rather the end of it. Wise people. They knew Alexander was orthodox; and if he had not been, I doubt they would have had any knowledge of the fact. Still, orthodox he was.
Fast forward to these disgraceful beginnings of the XXI Century. The Pope has, it can be safely said, no mistresses and no illegitimate sons; he does not lead an extravagant life; he is certainly persuaded, “in conscience”, that he is a good man. I cannot imagine he has many fears about his eternal destiny, something Alexander could at least be worried about.
Still, this man will contribute to the loss of millions of souls; he reinforces heretics and heathen in their conviction that there is no need to convert; he downplays the doctrinal solidity of the Church at every step; he leads people to believe they can be saved by merely following their conscience; he tells them they should not be “obsessed” by abortion and homosexuality; he tells everyone there is no need to evangelise; he gnaws and scratches at Catholicism in thousand little and less little ways, some of them clearly heretical, some of them merely stupid; in short, with his intellectual pride he gives scandal and confuses the faithful day in and day out, not with his private conduct but certainly with his public one.
I do not doubt in all ages past most people would have told us a Francis is infinitely more dangerous than an Alexander. More still, they might have had difficulties in even understanding the question: the privately corrupt people were part of their everyday experience, but a Pope behaving like Francis must have been, to them, simply inconceivable.
There can be, therefore, no doubt Francis is much worse, much worse as a Pope than every “Renaissance Prince” you might care to mention; in the same way as a Churchill is infinitely better than Chamberlain as a British Prime Minister irrespective of any private virtue the latter might have had.
I am not very interested in the private conduct of a Pope. Not much more, anyway, than I am interested in the private conduct of Winston Churchill. Every soul has infinite importance. Therefore, the salvation of a Pope isn’t more important than the salvation of Mrs Bridges, the pleasant neighbour of number 23. But think how many millions Mrs Bridges Francis is encouraging on the way to perdition. Pope Alexander was certainly corrupt and scandalous as far as his scandals could go; but Francis has unwittingly – but very arrogantly – made of himself a damnation machine on a planetary scale as his intellectual pride allows him to attack and sabotage Truth at every step and even persuade himself he is doing the right thing. He is, after all, following his conscience. Sounds a bell?
No. Keep your Francis, and give me ten Alexander VI instead, any day.
Guido Barilla just gave us a wonderful example of stupidity and cowardice united in the same person.
First he gives an interview in which he says Barilla is for the traditional family and faggots are welcome to buy their pasta somewhere else; when the latter predictably get screeching like it’s going out of fashion, he backpedals in such a furious and shameful way you wonder if he isn’t one of them himself.
This is so gay.
One can one be so stupid that he does not understand that these days if you say a word against the Gaystapo you must expect retaliation, at least in words. How can he be so shameless that he does not understand he will look like the French army in 1940. How can he, most of all, be such an hypocrite as to first try to play the “family” card and then tell all supporters of the family they are so utterly wrong.
Punish Barilla and do not buy their pasta and other products anymore. It’s not that there is lack of choice. Among the mainstream producers, smart buyers buy De Cecco anyway, and they know why.
Stupid, hypocrite and coward Guido Barilla will now hopefully be boycotted by perverts and normal people alike.
It would serve him right.
What a faggot.
I thought you might want to know that the app market has already provided for us Pelagians.
This simple counter app for android will allow you to count your prayers (or even rosaries!) in the comfort of your smartphone or tablet.
For Iphone, I have found Bean, of if you like a more elegant surface, this here might do. Both are multiple counters, so you can count separately several items: say, the rosaries you have prayed, Francis’ heretical statements, the bishops’ heretical statements mentioning Francis’ ones, etc.
This must be Pelagian’s heaven.
I hope you will enjoy these apps and will install one in your favourite device to indulge in your Pelagianism.
Kindly do not tell Francis, though.
He would be very “concerned”.
“Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. “Blind’- they are, and “leaders of the blind” puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which “they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself.”
“Pascendi Dominici Gregis”, 13. Emphasis mine.
It is perhaps fitting to explain in two (or three) words how I would like to moderate the comments appearing on the comment box.
Please no comments that are openly critical of blogs I like. It isn’t the done thing that the comment box of one blog is used for this kind of exercise concerning other blogs; certainly not when the blogs in question are, in general, on our side. There is a difference between a liberal or dissenting blog and a conservative blog honestly trying to defend a certain position; even then, when we consider the position indefensible.
When I want to criticise a friendly blog, I will take care to do it myself and in a way that is not seen as hostile; at least I will try. I know it’s a difficult and very subjective exercise, but there is a level of mild criticism with which I feel comfortable, and a level of less mild criticism with which I don’t. Please reflect the one or other blog may be doing an excellent work even if you don’t like – nor do I – their position on the current pontiff, disgracefully reigning. Please also consider by publishing critical comments I would be seen as “agitating”, or offering a platform against other blogs, through the indirect way of the comments published here. This is not the way I want this blog to be seen. Whatever criticism I want to make, I’ll word it myself and put my signature below it.
I know it’s hard at times, but we should not start to have this blog as a platform for an open criticism of other blogs, or TV channels. There are enough liberals shooting at us, let us not shoot at each other. If you must, try to take the comment box of the one or other blog as the work of humorists, brought to you for free courtesy of the blog writer. Yes, I find some commenters on other blogs astonishing, and others real fifth columns.
If those commenters – or those blog writers – criticise this blog, or blogs like this one, kindly ignore them. The beauty of a blog – as opposed to a forum – is that one doesn’t have to “answer” anyone. If you don’t like a blog, read blogs you like. You won’t change the mind of anyone who thinks Francis is the best thing since sliced bread. Use your time to write comments helping confused readers to stay faithful to the papacy whilst understanding Francis is the worst since V II instead. Again, a blog is not a discussion forum, and you should expect the commenters on a blog to espouse the line of the blog writer, and encourage him on his path. It’s par for the course.
Secondly, please no links to questionable sites, with strange “prophecies” or the like. If you like the easy prophecy, in Medjugorje there’s a daily fax coming: more crap than you will ever be able to stomach.
It’s astonishing how fast people believe every rubbish on the Internet. Don’t believe it, and don’t post it here.
Thirdly, no Sedevacantist material. When I decide that I have to link to one of those sites I will do it myself, but I do not feel comfortable with links posted through the comment box. I notice from the comments that a number of my readers must be heavily disoriented, and very disturbed by the current events. Let us not tempt them to go along the wrong path. What for you can be a useful source of information, for others might have more dangerous consequences. There is no reason why we should help them down this road. On the contrary, one of the aims of this blog is to help its readers to live with a very stinking papacy, whilst still remaining loyal to the Papacy.
I will be very blunt: if one’s mother behaves like a slut one will be authorised to criticise his mother, not to deny that she is the mother. This we must always keep in mind, and help others – who might be in the middle of an understandable crisis – to do the same. Whatever you write here is, if published, read in time by thousands of people, and hundreds on the same day. Think of the effect this might have on the many who land on this blog because Francis is sabotaging their Catholicism.
As a closing remark, I am always happy when Proddies write here and praise the blog. But please consider that this blog is there, inter alia, to convert them. Dear Proddie friends, I invite you who chance to land here to browse around the blog (the “Vademecum” on top could be a good start; the search function another) and to consider the message of Catholicism with a mind open to learning what Catholicism really is, as opposed to what your parents – or your cafeteria catholic friends – told you it is.
The bottom line is that you are wrong, and Catholicism is right. Anglicans click here.
Harsh, I know; but charitable.
Give this papist blog a fair chance. You might be surprised.
If one remembers correctly, it was last Thursday that the F-Bomb exploded in the face of orthodox Catholics. Not the usual F-bomb, though, but a particularly insidious, 12,000 words long one.
With his interview, a cunning but not very intelligent Holy Father tried to give a massive push with the shoulder to the way Catholicism is – still – perceived, and to captivate an audience of anti-clerical heathens and enemies of the Church. It was an interview worth of a Quisling, offering the abortionist and perverted Nazis of our time a partial, but very abundant surrender against the background of a worldwide “lio” meant to make of Francis if not Christ's vicar, at least the darling of the planet.
One week later, it is fair to say the big modernist onslaught has very probably failed, and failed parlously.
For the first time, the worry with the antics of “Jorge” has become mainstream. I do not think there is now one Catholic on the planet who does not know this Pope is heavily criticised in his own ranks. How different this is from the modern icon of the “papal JFK”, ushering a new era of dialogue and understanding! How different Francis' press has become compared to March or April! The heavily promoted “JFK” bubble exploded sometime between last weekend and the beginning of this week, when the headlines about the angered or confused Catholics began to attract the attention of the specialised, but also mainstream, media.
Yes, there was the usual reaction of the “business as usual” crowd, but this time it was clear rather early it was truly not business as usual.
A blogging priest writes an extremely blunt – if you can read between the lines; which I know you can – description of the aftermath of the interview in four instalments. An archbishop openly talks about the disorientation of his own parishioners and says how instructive their devastating emails are. A bishop makes clear he really could not notice the obsession his… colleague in Rome is blabbering about. The blogger now worldwide known for being a too staunch defender of Francis signalled the interview was a mistake. Even the video warrior has made two episodes which, though still rather prudent, are in the end clearly critical of the man, and this in just a few days.
It really starts to get noticed: Francis has made his bed.
Yes, no prelate writes a word about this huge mess without stressing how actually – cough – right the Pope is if your magnifying glass is powerful enough; but at some point even my cat got the gist of the good bloggers and orthodox bishops' comments: dear Lord, whatever they are smoking over there, please let them stop.
In the meantime, the sly Francis had scheduled his own insurance policy: on the Thursday he publishes a 12,000 words interview of sabotage against the “obsessions” that prevent his popularity from becoming stellar, and on the Friday he pronounces some twenty words against abortion, so that the simple are appeased and the critics are silenced. The intervention does not get much press. Obviously. If Francis had wanted the press, he would have released the prolife speech not one day after, but instead of the Quisling enchilada.
Please don't insult your intelligence thinking Francis doesn't know what will make world headlines and what will not go past Catholic blogs and magazines, and pro-life sites. It's not difficult to arrange things so that the press will pick only what we want. Ask every politician. Or every bishop.
Alas, this time it did not work as expected; true, the cretins would have been appeased if Francis had said “the sky is blue”; but as of last Friday the critics knew Francis had thrown away the mask, and have reacted accordingly. Go around the comments on all major blogs and magazines and read the rage of true Catholics: people with fear of the Lord and belief in Christ, and who have decided that enough in enough. More in general, just follow the “Catholic Answers” controversy. A lot of people have had enough, and they start saying it. In a way, Francis' antics are having the effect of waking up some people who were either asleep or silent. No bullshit anymore for us, they say, thank you very much.
Slowly, a new narrative is being created to justify the obvious fact the F-bomb has exploded in the middle of Francis' humble Ford Focus: Francis has not considered the cultural environment of the West; he is Argentinian, you see, and they are sooooo different from us: when you translate them into English it always looks like they have smoked a joint, or are flipping heretics, or don't know what they are talking about. You see, the Americans thinks in terms of being allowed to do what their “conscience” say, whilst the rest of the world's atheists and anticlericals don't, so it's clear something got lost in translation…
But Francis is against abortion, he really is! After months and an entire WYD of flipping silence he has finally said twenty words the day after the worst scandal of his already scandal-rich pontificate, so he must have been right all the time! He just forgot to mention! So much to do, you see…
Spoken in blunt Italian terms, Francis' virginity on pro-life issues has gone, and if he wants to remake a virginity for himself he will have to work very hard, or at least follow the job description. On his overall orthodoxy, more people begin to doubt than the usual suspects – yours truly proudly included -. The word “heresy” (material heresy, of course) is pronounced seldom, but implied very often in blog comments, from people who clearly understand what's going on and will not be flattened on the “Francis good, Press bad” mantra. In a word, this disgraceful interview has exposed Francis, and the “Dalai Lama In White” icon is now visibly scratched. Thank God for that.
It was Neo-Modernism overkill, and it has backfired. The scandal has reached the mainstream. If Francis isn't entirely deluded he can now see the cannons being moved, and he must know they will not all be directed at “the ugly press” forever. For a man obsessed (I used this word on purpose) with his own popularity this must be a rather heavy warning.
Francis has abused the patience and charity of faithful Catholics once too much. From now on, by every heretical statement a growing number of faithful will understand it's Francis or Christ, and those who choose Christ will be enough to destroy the icon of the “Dalai Lama In White” for the rest of his pontificate, and bring him shame galore for all centuries to come.
Make no mistake, though: if Francis were to dance the tango in St. Peter's Square dressed in nothing more than rainbow undies and black shoes there would be no scarcity of bloggers explaining to us why this is a good thing (though the undies should possibly have been white, so atheists do not misunderstand the message of purity and dialogue clearly implied in Francis' gesture).
Let the defenders against all reason of Francis say what they like. They are smelling the winds of war as much as you do. They will at some point begin to question not the motives, but the ways of the… bishop. They know if he continue to make an ass of himself (yes: an ass of himself; and shame on him for that) there's no way they can save his face, so they will at least try to save theirs.
The F-bomb has exploded in the Focus' back seat.
Be under no illusion concerning the man's orthodoxy. But now, let us see how smart Francis really is.
A dedicated blog is online, dealing with the recovery of Thomas Peters from his very serious accident.
Whilst the blog does not make for very happy reading for obvious reasons, it is very encouraging to read the younger blogger of the Peters family does not need the surgical collar anymore, is gradually regaining the use of the left foot, and is generally recovering in a very encouraging way.
In your charity, keep praying for this young, courageous man. His is one of the very first blogs I started reading, and this little effort of mine owns its existence to combative Catholics like the young Mr Peters.
May he, one day, think of this accident only to give thanks for a complete recovery.
On the “Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican II” blog there is a beautiful blog post posing the question whether Francis, the Bishop of Rome who doesn’t like to call himself Pope, is a Modernist.
I suggest that you follow the link and give the reflections of this excellent blogger your full attention.
As for myself, I will add to the excellent considerations of the blog post’s author a couple of short thoughts:
1. The antics of this man are getting so numerous, that one rapidly forgets the earlier ones as new ones keep coming with astonishing regularity. I had already forgotten the pandering to Muslims during Ramadan, and I have even written about it. Again, it’s an avalanche, and a serious case of papal logorrhea. There is no better way to make any sensible man aware of the deeply confused nature of this man’s Catholicism than to realise one has not been able to keep pace with his blunders.
2. I commend to your attention the beautiful metaphor of the family used in the blog post. I allow myself to report it here in its entirety, so striking it is.
The little ones, who are not yet prepared for solid food, haven’t the wherewithal to even recognize that a problem exists. Others, who are somewhat more mature in the Faith, are so taken with the false idea that Daddy can never be wrong, that they will rush to defend him at every turn, regardless of how outrageous his behavior might be. Still others in the household are informed enough to see the problem, but are too weak to confront it, choosing instead to profess to “keeping their eye on the prize,” essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and humming “Amazing Grace” in the hope that it will all just go away.
The smallest number of those among us, however, will look without fear at the bitter reality that papa is drunk on modernism, and his reckless behavior is so dangerous that it threatens not only those who dwell within the Household of God, but even those who wander in darkness beyond its walls.
Among them, a relative few intrepid souls will do everything in their power to warn the others, both within and without, taking bullets and arrows and all manner of artillery simply for daring to proclaim the immutable truths of the Faith that alone can assure our salvation.
It’s a thankless job, this, but someone has to do it.
Your humble correspondent hopes and prays that the day they die the author of the words just reported, the humble correspondent himself and all the others who have the guts to take “bullets and arrows and all manner of artillery” will, wretched sinners as we all are, get some heavenly brownie points for pointing out to what should be so obvious, but few want to see.
3. With usual timeliness, the blog post author received the first criticism – with the very first published comment – from the usual defenders of niceness, to whom no matter how gentle you are in presenting the truth – and in this case, the gentleness was extreme – you are being “harsh”. Clearly, some people can never resist the temptation to shoot at the messenger. In case you ask, I would not have published that particular comment; but hey, I am a Disciplinarian all right.
Enjoy this breath of fresh air, then, and draw from it the strenght to prepare yourself for a battle that might be only at the beginning, and could well go on for many decades; probably well beyond our grave.
I am so glad Francis is not the “judgmental” type.
You probably have already read about this interview, in which the mother of all deluded nuns calls Francis “teachable” on issues like so-called same-sex marriage and wymyn priests.
It goes without saying not Even Francis would openly defy Catholic teaching in such matters. True, we will never know if he, having the possibility, would decide differently; but he must be rather aware of the fact he is the Pope and not, say, the wannabe Archbishop of Canterbury, so we can be confident the matter is closed. Still, the rant of the mad nun is not only self-serving (a clear “look at me” headline), but at the same time points out to how nearer Francis is to her than all his predecessors. Again, in looking at him as a sort of promising material the female is certainly wrong is we consider the Pope’s attitude concerning the negotiability of infallible teaching, but is certainly right if we measure the Popes since Vatican II with the liberal-o-metre; in which case Francis is, simply, off the chart.
Please count how many times the mad nuns have called Benedict, or JP II, “teachable”. Yes, exactly.
Please forget all the rest, that isn’t worth your time (the mad nun idea she is now in favour of perversion because she has the pervert in the family; and the Cardinal Newman Society telling us the half truth that the Church calls for compassion towards homos without telling us what the Church says of unrepentant sodomites).
What I would wish you to get home from this interview is that for the first time since marijuana opened its way into nunneries, a Pope is considered at least interesting material, a man that might have good surprises in store for mad nuns.
Please don’t say Francis isn’t culpable for this perception. Of course he is. His shameless desire to appear modern, tolerant and not obsessed instead of orthodox and, well, obsessed is the reason why everyone on the left, dissenting or revolutionary camp (operative word here is: “camp”) lavishes praises on him. Even mad nuns, at least to the extent a mad nun could ever praise a Pontiff.
Again, count the times Pope Benedict had such headlines from such people. It will tell you something many don’t want to know.
Francis continues to collect headlines for the wrong reasons. It’s every day now. He does too little, too late and too quietly to counter the tsunami of praise from atheists, abortionists, dissenters, and liberals of all kind. Do not think this is a coincidence. And please do not swallow hook, line and sinker the tale of the courageous pope who now speaks against abortion just because of one single short intervention against abortion after a revolutionary onslaught of 12,000 words. When the world press starts insulting Francis for his abortion stance, than you’ll know the message has reached the intended recipients, both Catholics and not. Until then, you’ll know he’s just feeding his Catholic pigeons whilst he panders to the enemy of the Church.
I am sick and tired of reading such headlines day in and day out, and be informed that we should simply ignore what happens all over the planet and be happy and satisfied with the very occasional remark in a Catholic direction.
Does Francis want his message on abortion to reach the masses? He only has to give two dozen interviews in which he speak frankly about abortion and does not talk of anything else, and you’ll see how the Press changes attitude towards him. It doesn’t need to be 12,000 words either; though if one can find 12,000 words to scandalise Catholics all over the world he might as well find them to talk about what’s really important.
How do you say? He would appear “obsessed”?
Well, let’s say he would appear “Catholic” instead. But I understand for him it must be a stretch.
I write many of my blog posts while travelling, using a well-known blog app. The settings are so that the language is Italian.
I go back when I can to the already published text to correct the typos that have escaped my attention, and to take care the brutal self-correction function has not allowed unwanted words to get in on the sly.
Every time I refresh the post, whilst the corrections are uploading the following word appears…
Believe me, it nerves me every time.
After writing an entire post about the problems of V II, I get pestered by it even during the uploads… 😉
I have just finished to read the above mentioned book, that you can obtain fast and cheap via Kindle.
Nothing like one of those old books full of hell stories to inspire in one a healthy fear of the Lord.
Once again, past generations may seem less enlightened to us, but they were smarter in the end.
On a sad note, Fr Schouppe was a Jesuit. Boy, how they have changed.
It seems the only way left to defend Francis and let him look like a halfway normal Pope instead of a dangerous liberal Neo-modernist, populist, appeasing moderniser is to deny that he is worse than he really is, and to infer from this that he must, then, be good.
At the end of May, Francis excommunicated a mad priest. A pope defrocking and or excommunicating a mad priest is not new or strange, and it is questionable whether it is “news”. For some predictable reason – like the necessity to give Francis a varnish of “tough” orthodoxy for the benefit of the gullible – the news has been echoed, several months after the fact, by the Press after the 12,000 word disaster, prompting desperate cries of “look! He is not the Antichrist!” from the equally desperate defenders of Circus Bergoglio.
The same happens with the nuns, or with the strange idea of Francis “changing the teaching of the Church”.
Well no, Francis is not a mad nun – though Nazi Pelosi seems almost to think he is; but actually not even she does – and it will always be easily possible to find a mad nun telling us that, to her, Francis is not good enough. But this does not prove absolutely anything beside the disquieting fact the mad nun considers the reflection whether the man could be, in fact, good enough a legitimate one, worthy of a statement or a video or an interview or an assertion that he might be “teachable” after all.
Similarly, the assertion that Francis “has not changed Church teaching” means perfectly nothing. The topics about which Francis has caused the biggest stir – abortion and homosexuality – are clearly part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. The bishop of Rome couldn't change them at all, so Francis not saying “as per midnight new rules will apply” doesn't even begin to be an argument to defend his alleged orthodoxy.
A Pope cannot change Church doctrine. What a bad Pope can do, though, is to downplay or sabotage or subvert important parts of it, and put fluffy sentimentalism and populist waffle of all sorts in its place. This has been a popular sport at the Vatican in these last 50+ years; but clearly, Francis wins the contest hands down and puts every one of his predecessors easily in the shade. In the hit parade for the worst pope since V II he has already left even the 15 years of Paul VI's pontificate easily behind himself, and he a … bishop of Rome only six months. Just imagine what he will do in ten or fifteen years.
The devastation caused by this man is now apparent, but there are still those who believe the entire planet is stupid and doesn't understand, for the thirtieth time, what Francis wanted to say. Some of them now begin to say that, perhaps, it might be a mistake to cause an earthquake a week with his oh so orthodox interventions; still, that dozens of interventions show a clear pattern of thinking and behaviour does not enter their elevated and perceptive minds. No. We just don't get the man, that's all.
You see, Francis is a sly, cunning man. A genius he is not, a Jesuit he clearly is. He knows how the church works, and how the V II crowd thinks. Therefore, he goes on with his work of destruction, comfortable in the knowledge that he will never be short of clericalist cheerleaders, whilst looking oh so good in the eyes of the enemies of Christ. The orthodox Catholics, on the other hand, he feels free to offend in that humble, non-judgmental way of his, and calls them various names, among which “obsessed”, “Restorationists”, “Disciplinarians”, and “Pelagians” come to mind, not to mention “hypocrites” and “cowards”.
Yes, Francis is against the ordination of women. Of course he is, this is Catholic dogma. Yes, he will defrock or excommunicate a priest every now and then, when there is really no alternative. But this proves exactly nothing concerning the main problem of Francis, the daily downplaying, sabotaging or subverting Catholic teaching in his quest for popularity and approval.
It's like wanting to defend Che Guevara stating that he wasn't Stalin after all.
It says little, and it proves nothing.
Imagine a friend of yours, or a politician, or a colleague would tell you “I am personally opposed to the Ku Klux Klan, but I do not want to impose my views on others”. No doubt, the person so speaking would feel very “democratic” and ” tolerant”, whilst at the same time donning the white robe of “goodness”, or even Catholic ” orthodoxy”.
Still, you would probably feel compelled to tell him that am intrinsic evil cannot be so easily set aside by remaining “personally opposed” to it whilst looking on as the evil spreads.
Everyone understands this, and no one would ever dream of approving of a politician who expressed himself as ” personally opposed” to the Holocaust, racial discrimination at work, or the killing of babies….
… how was that?….
The killing of babies?
Actually, the excuse of being “personally opposed” to the killing of babies…
View original post 311 more words
‘We either support women’s capacity to decide, or we don’t,’ she said. ‘You can’t be pro-choice except when you don’t like the choice, because that’s not pro-choice at all.’
These chilling, but rather logical words were pronounced today by the head of the UK's biggest extermination machine for unborn babies. I am sure, before you ask, that she follows her conscience. Come to that, I am pretty sure Satan did the same.
The woman's reasoning is chilling, but logical. Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. Either the mother should have the right to kill her baby, or she shouldn't.
If she has, the logical consequence is that, well, she and no one else has the choice. She must, then, perforce be able to abort the baby because the baby will be a girl, or red-haired, or something else she does not want.
Atrocious? Unthinkable? Murderous?
Not more and not less than any other abortion. Murder is murder.
The issue of the selective abortion of girls will become more and more relevant as the huge scale of such practice in India and China becomes more apparent in the years and decades to come.
In a country like England, with a substantial presence of Chinese and Indian immigrants – some of them Christians, most heathens – the practice of selective abortion might also create – or already be about to create – the same problem.
It will be interesting to see how the rabid feminists deal with this. They might choose the Nazi way of the above mentioned female, but then the criticism of the oppressive patriarchal society will sound even more stupid than usual.
ASSOCIATED ESPRESSO – 23 September -.
CAGLIARI, ITALY. In an unprecedented show of economics wisdom and vicinity to the Holy Ghost, Pope Francis today has not only explained what's wrong with the world, but has also worked the first miracle of his revolutionary pontificate.
Francis explained to a Sardinian crowd that the problem is that jobs exist to allow companies to earn money. This is very, very bad.
Just there with criticising and, obviously, gossip.
When the incredulous crowd hesitated in getting the concept – which they had heard last from the PCI, the long defunct Communist Party of Italy, many years ago – Francis started to chant “work, work, work”. In this exact moment, thousands of jobs were miraculously created. These are, as it was immediately apparent, very special and in themselves rather miraculous jobs: they do not cost any money, they do not generate any profit, but they allow the workers to live comfortably.
As the commenters the world over examine the new miraculous event and wonder whether this introduces the end of Capitalism as we know it, Francis is now expected in Bari, Taranto, Palermo, Trapani and Naples – where further miraculous job creations are eagerly awaited – before embarking in the Francis World Job Tour.
A Nobel Prize for the Economy is also expected to be given to him. Many enchanted almost conservative bloggers – and some very conservative ones – are already saying that Francis' knowledge of the economy is on par with his knowledge of Catholicism.
An angry Italian writing a small Pelagian, Restorationist blog obsessed with abortion even decided to publish a blog post before the end of the “abortion obsession day”.
“De newse ise juste too bigge to be ignored”, he said with his pleasant Italian accent, ” I have nevere likede thise Pope Bergoglio, butte now I amme a believer”.
Kudos all around.
Lifesitenews.com reports about an intervention from Cardinal Burke in an interview released earlier this month. From Life Site News’ article:
Asked about Pelosi, [Cardinal Burke] said,
“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied.”
Canon 915 states that those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
“This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” the cardinal said. “I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.”
I will be frank with you. I was appalled at the “disciplinarian” attitude of the good Cardinal. It is clear he has a (and I quote) “static and inward-directed view of things”. He is obviously wrong, because “the church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently”. It is clear the good Cardinal has to “find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”
On the contrary, as a minister of the Church, he “must be minister of mercy above all”.
Thank God, we have Francis taking care that the liberals do not heed what the Cardinal says. This restorationism will not lead us anywhere.
Good Lord. The man talks as if he had the Truth. And he is so judgmental!
I admit it.
I am, in Francis’ words, “obsessed” with abortion.
In order to show my clear and manifold guilt ( including, in case you doubt it, my “restorationism”, my “pelagianism”, my “legalism”, my “certainties”, my “triumphalism” and my many other “isms” Francis does not like), I publish below the link to a small (the operative word here is: small) number of posts against abortion I have written. I have stopped at twenty, because the search function will allow you to find many more if you so wish.
Read away at your pleasure.
The fact is, some of us do care.
I know. It’s bad. With all the murderous gossiping around, we should have other priorities.
I am so obsessed, in fact, that I have declared this one the “Abortion Obsession Day”.
On this day, there will be only one topic: abortion.
If any other are as obsessed as I am, they might consider joining the initiative, declaring themselves obsessed with abortion, and do the same.
It might be, I thought, the right kind of answer.
Post of the day, from a well-known blog:
How many times have you said this in the past six months, XX XXX? “I don’t think that that is what he thinks or what he is doing or saying.” I’m tired of saying it already.
Pity one can’t frame a statement on this blog platform. I would have done it.
On a totally related news, “Reading Francis Through Benedict” has disappeared from the front image of a well-known (and excellent in so many ways) blog.
About time. But well done!
[EDIT: sadly, it’s back. Oh well…].
My dear little one,
I write to you in a very difficult moment of your very young life, because even if you cannot read I think there are some things of which you should be informed.
In just a few minutes your young and tender life – a God-given gift, full of bliss and promise – will be abruptly, unnaturally, and cruelly put to an end. I am very sorry to tell you that if you have already developed small legs and arms , and are already almost looking like a little child, you will be torn to pieces whilst still living, and you will be extracted from your mother’s womb one piece at a time.
Your rests will be discarded. You will not be considered a person, so you will not be buried.
Talking of your mother, she has by now persuaded herself – in conscience – that you are a lump of cells, and refuses to see herself as your mother, or you as the baby God gave her. She thinks she has the “right to choose”; which, my dear little one, means she thinks she has the right to kill you, or to dispose of the lump of cell she pretends you are as if you were a huge tumor, or an overgrown cyst.
I will not lie to you. You will have to be strong. It will be very painful. God in His mercy and justice will, no doubt, provide you with ample recompense for the atrocious suffering and injustice of your murder. He will treat you with great love, and show you all His infinite justice and mercy. You will not feel unjustly treated, not by him at least. But yes, it will be very painful. Perhaps, little one, your little soul will feel at some level, in those terrible minutes, the atrocious pain of knowing that your own mother wants you dead, your own dear mother you thought so warm, welcoming, and loving.
Your mother hesitated a long time, you know. All her friends, and some of her relatives, told her to “do what she has to do”, and she was torn. She wasn’t able to see the blessing of your life, you see, nor was she encouraged to see things in that way; so she was undecided, waiting, not knowing what to do.
Last week, though, your mother read an interview about a man you do not know; a very famous one. This man was saying if she does not believe in God she is allowed to decide according to her conscience, and this will decide whether what she does is right or wrong. Your mother never believed in God, you see, and whatever little doubt she might have had that perhaps, perhaps there is this God – and if there is, she is doing something terrible – was instantly silenced when she read the interview; because the man is very important, my dearest little one, and it is very easy to let him say more than he wants to say. Particularly so, because this man is very anxious to please, so eager to say nothing that your mother would dislike; therefore, he never said to your mother in clear and unmistakable words that she has no right to murder you, full stop.
At that point, little one, your permanence on this earth was probably decided. Still, your mother hesitated.
A very few days ago, she read another interview. It was with the same important man. The man said words to the effect that he can’t “obsess” and talk “all the time” about your mother murdering you, because there are so many other important things to care about. He also had said – or your mother thought he said; which she did, like pretty much everyone else – people should not let your mother feel bad if she murders you, because she is following her conscience, you see. In addition, your mother thought, the man is right also in this: she is doing what she thinks right, so who is anyone to judge? The important man told that too, you must know.
No, little one. Your mother did not read the interviews in detail. She did not make any enquiry about the theological implications. She did not read many of the 12,000 words of the latest interview. She did what most people do: she read the titles, perused the articles, read the clear citations from the man, and felt relieved.
Case closed, then. She is not so bad after all. There are so many other things in life than a clump of cell who thinks he has the right to become her baby. She is very environmentally friendly, you know – she drives a Prius; you have been brought to your place of execution in a low-emission vehicle -, she does not eat meat because it’s cruel towards animals, she campaigns against smoke and drink, and she supports the struggle of the polar bear; she is concerned about social justice, is a great friend of hope and change, and sends money to Africa to help those poor children who might, otherwise, die; because the Western capitalistic society is so selfish and self-centred, instead of being as caring, concerned for the planet and socially aware as she is.
And that it was, my dear, that sealed the deal on your death. Even the Pope – this is how the man is called, though he seems not to like it – was not “judging” her, then. Even he “got it” then, at least at some level. There are so many other priorities in life, she thought. She can abort – erm, terminate her pregnancy – and continue her battle in defence of humanity. By that she means of the people who have been born. No, to her you are not part of humanity. To her, you are a punishment. Yes, she remembers these words clearly, “punished with a baby”. They are from another important man who doesn’t like you at all, because you can’t vote.
Your mother “meets the other”; she is caring, generous, concerned and socially aware. To her, Christian “homophobia” goes against elementary “human rights”, like slavery once. No, to her you are not human, so you have no human rights. But look: she never ever gossips, because it’s so “judgemental”. She follows her conscience, which says to her it’s not good for you to be born. Not at all. Nope.
So she took the decision, and made the call. When she had put down the phone, she recalled those words of the man again: “who am I to judge?”. Yes, who is anyone to judge? She is following her conscience, and her conscience tells her you have the duty to die, because no one asked you to be there in the first place; besides, even that man said there are other priorities in the end, you can’t reduce bad and good to one single issue and obsess over it. The times have changed. Abortion is here to stay, you see. Sad, he knows; but not worth obsessing about.
And so there you are, my little one, and you will die today. No, it was not the important man who killed you. Your mother will kill you. She will kill her own son, and give to a trained executioner the task of executing her death sentence. Make no mistake, her conscience will make no objection. Not today, not in ten years’ time; but in twenty or thirty, more probably; and then it will be hell on earth: a mother knowing that she has killed her own baby, and does not even believe in God, in Whose merciful arms she could take refuge.
No, it was not the important man who killed you. But what he could have done to try to help you he decided not to. You are too controversial, little one. Your existence goes too much against the grain of modern society. The important man just does not want to be “obsessed” with you, you see. He has other priorities. Poverty, or gossip.
You know, the day after that long interview your mother did not read he did speak in your defence, the important man. Yes, for the first time he clearly did. But he has done the damage already, and today no one believes this is really what he thinks, or rather really an important part of how he acts. He was told to say so, says everyone; he was told to say so because he has to, because he needs to save face, because all those around him implored him to say something, because damage control had become necessary. So, it was too little, and too late. Your mother has made her decision, and she is now sure that even the Pope thinks that your life isn’t the only issue, or whatever…
Therefore, little one, today is the day you die. You will never know the embrace of your earthly mother, never will you learn to smile at her, recognise her voice, feel her tender love. You are a punishment and a clump of cells; you are a “product of conception”, and you must be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.
When you look at it with your little eyes open, you realise that it must be so.
Even the important man thinks you are, when all is said and done, just not that much of a priority.
For the next April Fool, I am thinking of writing a blog post with one of the following topics.
1) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. We shouldn’t feel too safe in our certainties.
2) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. It reminds us that we need to pray for an orthodox Pope.
3) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. Jesus did that with the Jews, too.
4) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. He must be saying something we need to hear.
5) The Pope confuses the faithful. This is good. Without growing pains, there would be no growth.
6) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. It means the Holy Ghost has decided to make some “holy mess”.
7) The Pope gives scandal to Catholics. This is good. We must open new areas to God.
I must still decide which issue to tackle.
It will be, as you can imagine, a very charitable blog post.
No judgment at all.
I feel all warm and fuzzy already.
The “one day, one of these might become Pope” reblog.
Hopefully you won’t need Italian (some parts are in English) to understand one only needs to walk around Rome with a microphone to find a number of priests who have no clue about the Ten Commandments.
The irony of the journalist is, in pure Italian style, abrasive but suave (“count with your little fingers”, a phrase told to little children, probably takes the biscuit).
The way some of them make asses of themselves is painful to behold (“do not sleep?”).
Personally I couldn’t stomach viewing all of it, but I think it’s highly instructive.
As they say in Italy: braccia rubate all’ agricultura (arms stolen to agricultural work).
This piece of senseless liberal waffle comes from the notorious 12,000 words interview. I though I would say a couple of very judgmental words about it.
“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal ‘security,’ those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists—they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”
Let us leave aside all the peripheral waffle and nonsense (“courage to open new areas to God”; a phrase that every heretic could find extremely useful) and let us concentrate on the two central pearls, the “exaggerated doctrinal security” and the “stubbornly try to recover the past” bits.
As to the first, what is this? Is the doctrinal security of this man shaky? Why is he Pope? How can a Pope, of all people, think that doctrinal security can be had in excess? Are we not supposed to have an indestructible faith not only in God, but in the Truths that He gave us through Holy Mother Church? My doctrinal security is as hard as granite, and whilst I doubt I have a complete grasp of it, my faith in its righteousness and holiness is unshakable. I don’t think this bad, at all. I have not the shade of a doubt that the authentic teaching of the Church is absolutely right in absolutely everything. I believe that God can neither deceive nor be deceived, and that I can believe in the complete righteousness of everything the Church authentically teaches me. If Francis thinks otherwise he should resign at once, because he has no business being Pope. If he thinks as he should, then he should leave this waffle aside. Boy, this Francis stinks of moral relativism like the biggest rat in the favela.
As to the second, we have another Grima Wormtongue moment: the jab directed at those who “stubbornly try to recover the past that no longer exist”. Do not kid yourself into thinking this is not an utterly subversive, and at the same time defeatist, statement directed exactly at the way society is changing under our eyes.
Stop complaining “obsessively” about the abominations of modern times, says here Grima. It’s too late. The battle is lost. Get over it.
Well, I beg to differ. The battle is never lost as long as there are people ready to give battle, and God’s battles are fought with only the ultimate victory in mind. We do not fight a battle because we think we will see victory in our lifetime. We fight it because it is the right thing to do. As to the time, even cataclysmic events like the French Revolution have been largely (alas, not entirely) overcome in just a few years, certainly no thanks to people like Francis. Situations can change rapidly; particularly in the modern democracies, with their fickle electorate. The “global warming” madness seemed planet changing only five years ago, and now it is all but dead in the water; and thirty years ago, an awful lot of people seriously were in favour of sex with children. God helps those who help themselves and are ready to fight the good fight; not the whining, spineless defeatists suggesting you find a modus vivendi with the enemy because hey, you are “stubbornly trying to recover a past that no longer exist”.
Come to that, that past no longer exists because there are too many Francis around, and it will continue to exist as long as they are around. The sooner they go, the better.
This pearl of Grima Wisdom has slipped my attention yesterday. I could not left this unsaid.
Francis is obviously trying to drawn us under a huge wave of Neo-modernism. We must fight every drop of it.
This is just stellar.
The “Eye of the Tiber” has the following post:
Minneapolis, MN––Dr. Simon Townsend, in an interview with United States Magazine, sent a clear message to his patient, Mr. Christopher Watts, who is suffering from stage-four terminal cancer. “Mr. Watts needs to stop letting himself get locked up in small things like the ever-growing tumors in his lungs that daily threaten his life.” Citing a need for his patient to widen his scope and not look myopically at one particular issue, the doctor warned Watts to “see the big picture” lest his overall health “fall like a house of cards.” Dr. Townsend continued, remarking that, “[Mr. Watts] is constantly harping about his cancer, his treatment, his chemotherapy, how long he has to live, blah blah blah. He doesn’t even seem to realize that he’s gotten really skinny and lost practically all his hair. I think he’s stressing himself out too much and needs to relax.” At press time, Mr. Watts was weakly leaning forward in his hospital bed to see if he could take a sip of water out of a straw and keep it down.
We should keep an … eye on this site. Humourvoll, always to the point, and very blunt.
I wish I had their sense of humour.
Kudos from here.