France: (very probably) Hell For Two

Dante had, with all Christians, different ideas about the eternal destiny of suicides.

In a “shocking” story that is, we are assured, provoking “much emotion” in France – emotions rule our times: thinking is sooo overrated – a couple of vecchi malvissuti (“old people who have lived badly”: Manzoni was a giant…) has decided to send themselves directly in the hands of the devil with a carefully planned, coldly executed suicide. One of them – the wife, I gather – has even left an angry letter because hey, she should be free to take her life in the manner most agreeable to her, and who are we to judge…

If you think God will have pity on these idiots, you are sailing on very dangerous waters and are in danger of considering hell a place from which we will be kept out no matter how big our effort to get there. From there to Father Barron the step is but a little one.

We cannot know how God decides in the individual situation, but in His mercy he thought it fit to let us know what his criteria are. As God cannot deceive us, we know with absolute certainty that He will stick to them. This means, in clear words, that either the respective guardian angel managed to achieve a perfect contrition for his charge at the very latest moment – an hypothesis going far beyond any reasonable assumption, but that we examine in acknowledgment that He is the one who decides – or the two must, if God is God (and God is God) perforce be in hell, having shouted their arrival rather loudly. Make your own mind about the odds, and shiver.

Double suicide. Carefully prepared. With two letters left. I would not want to be the Catholic priest who, in such a situation, gives scandal and confuses the faithful by allowing – provided any such is asked – a Catholic funeral for the two, and dies one day without repenting for his folly.

Still, let us be clear here: the folly is becoming mainstream. Millions of Frenchies will now see as “unjust” that a man cannot terminate himself as if he were a hamster tired of the wheel, and will abandon the Christian front like it's 1940. They will demand “compassion” and ask that what God has given human folly may throw away, feeling terribly good in the process. Methinks, the attitude will be shared not only by atheists – which is coherent with being an atheist: if there is no God, even a Holocaust is a matter of choice and a man not intrinsically different from a hamster; merely more complicated – but even by people who believe themselves at least vaguely Christian, and seem to think God must have been utterly wrong in those old dark and judgmental times, times not yet enlightened by the compassion of societally accepted suicide and mass abortion.

The liberal press will go at this like the devil's whores they are. Perhaps even beyond France. Other like them – Cameron, Clegg and Miller come to mind – might profit to obtain other cheap points for themselves. We have seen it happening in Ireland already.

Everyone who supports even indirectly any form of euthanasia is clearly sinning gravely, and putting his salvation in grave danger. Yes, even if it is our son, or sister, or cousin. We must never tire to say so and pay the price – there is always a price to pay for siding with Christ: this is how the system works – and pray for those, particularly if loved ones, who mock or insult us.

One day, we will have our reward. Those who want to decide about life (abortion) and death (so-called euthanasia) and willfully die in their stupidity will, alas, get theirs.

One hundred years ago, such an event would have filled an entire community with unspeakable dread at the sight of the impious monstrosity committed. Nowadays, it's a competition for the one who has most understanding.

We live in times when fornication is considered clean, and ozone a pollutant; when the suicide, the most abominable criminal of them all, is looked at with sympathy, and the religion that condemns him condemned in turn; when countless people seriously think they are too good to accept Christ's moral standard.

The modern religion, aided and abetted in the highest places, can be reassumed in five terrible words:

Who am I to judge?


Posted on November 27, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard from Malines-Brussels wants women to be cardinal:

    “Women priests, no! Women Cardinals, yes!”

    The news has been confirmed by the press-office of the Archbishop!

  2. I was amused by the words used by the leader of the French ‘right to die’ campaigners saying that people were being forced to use ‘drastic means’ to end their lives. Very curious use of words. Does he mean that ending someone’s life would not be ‘drastic’ if it were legal and done by someone who happened to hold a medical degree?

    • Yeah,
      The luxury hotel “Lutetia” was really squalid. An extreme protest, a bit like setting oneself up in fire.
      Deadly expensive, too.


    • Yes, that is exactly what they mean. I swore an oath that I would preserve life (the declaration of Geneva, if you want to know) when I graduated from medical school. I do not see a role for any medico in any form of quasi judicial killing: and that is what euthanasia (and abortion) is.

      What is frightening is when liberal clerics — on both sides of the Tiber — say that their compassion means that this killing is licit. It is not.

      And we do have the right to judge: on the last days the apostles will judge the tribes of Israel and the church will judge the others. And all our petty sins and betrayals will be made public. There will be a final accounting.

      May the French Reformed and Protestant churches refuse such a service. May the catholics and coptics refuse such a service. The Orthodox will not even need to think (they have all ready said either “anathema” or “nyet”).

      Let the memorial be held by a pagan recusant. For the church not only has a right to judge, but a duty to do so.

%d bloggers like this: