Daily Archives: November 21, 2013
I receive from a reader, servodeprata (welcome, by the way!) a link from the “Catholic News Service” (the source is, therefore, above suspicion).
The link contains the following pearl of wisdom from our Bishop of Rome:
“Do you need to convince the other to become Catholic? No, no, no! Go out and meet him, he is your brother. This is enough. Go out and help him and Jesus will do the rest”.
For the first time in the history of Catholicism, evangelisation is made without evangelisation. Actually, there could be no need for evangelisation at all.
In pure Francis style, this confused but so well-sounding piece of nonsense could mean one of two:
1. You don’t need to evangelise: Jesus will evangelise for you, when he sees that your meet-o-meter and help-o-meter has reached a high enough level, and he will then care for the conversion of the poor…
View original post 219 more words
The last controversy about Obama choosing to keep God out of his rendition of the Gettysburg Address is another very telling indicator of how the mind (or what takes that name) of this man works.
Who would, believing in the Holy Trinity, do everything possible and impossible to expunge God from every public statement? Nobody, is the easy answer. Lame excuses of wanting to “respect” those who do not believe in God are as stupid as wanting to follow the rules of Ramadan so that the colleague near you is not offended at seeing you having lunch, but then again one like that would obviously leave God in the Gettysburg address so that the Christians are not offended, too.
It is evident to everyone with a brain that for a Christian to want to expunge God from the public sphere is tantamount to be ashamed of his faith; which no Christian could ever, in conscience, be, so that of this man we could only say that he has lost his faith.
We will, therefore, have to conclude that such a man is an enemy of Christianity, bent on sabotaging it from the comfortable spot of his convenient Christian facade.
Obama, the son of an early example of liberal college slut, certainly did not get any religious education from his mother, or from his anyway absent father. He grew up in a Muslim environment, and attended schools – I am informed – reserved to Muslims, which means he either was considered such, or was such, or certainly did not have anything speaking for his being a Christian. When millions in the West were listening to the bells of the local church, he heard – and stated he is still very fond of – the call of the Muezzin. When he went back to the US – after being abandoned by his mother, too; such are liberal parents – he was raised by his grandparents, and particularly his grandmother, whose liberal ideas are well known and, by the way, clearly shown in the daughter they raised.
But did young Barry improve when he went back to the “country under God”, the United States? Not really.
His Christian facade was the one of a rabidly racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, a man from whom even Obama at some point had to distance himself, and only after repeated controversy. Is this a good Christian credential? Not likely.
Does he attend church now that he has – finally – canned Wright? Very rarely; apparently a couple of times a year, on those TV occasions. Does he defend Christian values? Never. He would have his daughters abort if they were “punished with a baby” (my words, not his: punished. with. a. baby), and what he calls Christian values are without exceptions the flags of the atheists and liberal culture, from de facto socialism to de iure sodomy.
Not a Christian, then, for sure. Certainly not a Muslim. A clearly thoroughly secular man, very probably as atheist as Stalin, with a cultural predilection for the religion in which he grew up (Islam, of course), and just that ridiculously thin varnish of Christianity that is necessary to become President in the USA.
A whitened sepulchre like few others on this planet, Obama incarnates the hypocrisy of the liberal classes, feigning some lip tribute to Christianity in abstract whilst trying to eradicate it from the planet in concrete.
Stalin was, at least, more honest.
We are invited from sources above suspicion to support Francis when he says something orthodox, lest the cheering liberal crowd highjacks the “narrative” concerning the Pope.
I am not sure I agree.
I support Orthodoxy, not a Pope. If the Pope is orthodox, then it's normal. If he is particularly good at being orthodox, then he will be worthy of praise. If he isn't orthodox, he is a disgrace.
What Liberals do and say about Francis is, in this context, fully irrelevant. We can't enter a shouting context over who praises Francis more and hope anything good will come out of that. On the contrary, much bad would come out of that, because we have been praising the person whose character we will be criticising the next day.
By all means: when Francis happens to do something right – which at times he does – let us note that he has done it right, and a “well done” might also be in order. But let us not think we will in any way do things better for the Church by supporting a Pope who is damaging her so much, until we find very robust evidence of a definitive return to orthodox Popes.
The Pope's good subject, but God's first.