Monthly Archives: December 2013
One of the most shallow aspects of an already extremely shallow Pope is his insistence on joy at all costs.
It goes so far, that we are now informed that sadness would, and I kid you not, indicate we are “far from Christ” (commentary) and have “strayed from Jesus” (his very words).
One wonders what Francis would have told to the Blessed Virgin, whose sorrows were certainly very real and always with her; though I wonder whether she ever was, ahem, far from Christ. Try growing a Child, Divine as He is, and to know that that very gentle toddler playing with the sand will one day be atrociously vilified, tortured and executed in the most brutal of ways, and tell me how joyful you are. This is, of course, only an example, though I am sure an example with which every mother will be able to relate.
With his slowly unbearable rhetoric of joy, Francis does not only downplay the suffering of the Blessed Virgin; he downplays the suffering of countless people (mothers and fathers most especially) whose life is a vale of tears, and who will, in most cases, not find much consolation in the “kindergarten animator” rhetoric of the Pope.
Where I come from – and we Italians are, God knows, a bunch of rather optimistic, sunny, cheerful people – it was common knowledge that sadness must be respected in others, not vilified in such a way. There is a time to be sad and a time to dance, stays in the Ecclesiastes. What kind of strange novelties is Francis spreading?
Francis must have had a very sheltered existence, with a safe occupation since his late Twenties, in order to have forgotten the daily cares of the people around him, and in particular the constant preoccupation of a father and a mother for the material and spiritual well-being of their loved ones.
Here, a father has lost his job; there, a son cannot find one; elsewhere, people who have promised to each other long for the minimum of security allowing them to marry, and pray God for better times. In many places, mothers and wives tremble to their last breath for the spiritual welfare and the eternal destiny of their dissolute or unbelieving sons and husbands; In many places, people have to leave their parents and friends and move to another country in pursue of a better existence in a fairer world, where opportunities will be provided by their own ability rather than from party affiliation, or from a network of influential relatives. Ask the mother so deprived of her son if she is sad, or her son; or ask me, because I am that son. I who still have so many reasons to be cheerful, that others don't have. I who am healthy, smart, and graced with a good job and good friends.
Has the Peruvian peasant, has the Brazilian cleaning lady no right to be sad? What does Francis think life is? When was last time he was afraid for the welfare (spiritual, or otherwise) of his dear ones? Has he never thought he was being tested beyond his own strength, and asked God in tears to give him the strength he fears he does not have? Has he never thrown himself at the feet of the Blessed Virgin, and cried his very heart out to her? How shallow for him to underplay, to even vilify and insult the weakness of those who suffer, and cry, and see no way out.
“Strayed from Jesus”. Who made this man Pope?
I was always told by the smart people in my life that this life is a place of fleeting joys, and perpetually unfulfilled hopes. A vale of tears, not an amusement park. Certainly, I do draw a great consolation from knowing that one day this disappointing circus will have an end, and I will – if God wills – reach the land where there is no sadness and no fear, no broken dreams and no shattered hopes, and happiness beyond dreams in God's presence. But to see sadness around us and not to be moved to compassion, rather than accusations, we must be very cynical people; people who have forgotten what real sorrow is, and do not have much goodness in their hearts.
I have also read – and found very well said – that sorrow and trouble help us to detach ourselves from the illusions of this world, and to long for an infinitely better existence. I can't imagine one good Christian who wasn't made a better man through his sadness, through his suffering, through his tears. Blessed tears, say I, and blessed sadness!
Compare, if you please, with Francis' mediocre, party-like motivational attempts. Of course, one understands he wants, in that shallow way of his, to “help”; but it happens very often with this man that he cannot help without being insulting, or without forgetting traditional Catholic piety, or both. And this happens because he has no Catholicism in his head, and no manners in his ways.
He says to you you have a “flight assistant smile” if your smile is not quite after his liking, and what flight assistants have done to him will remain forever unknown; to encourage people not to gossip he compares gossip to homicide, thus indicting of homicide-like behaviour pretty much all of the female population to varying degrees; if you count rosaries for him, he will vilify you; if you have “doctrinal certainties” he considers “excessive” (what a stupid, oxymoronic thing to say!) he will put you among the Pharisees; heck, even if you are sad he will tell you you have “strayed from Christ”…
However could the people in Buenos Aires cope with such poppicock for so long? Is it a surprise many of them (wrongly, indeed!) are then tempted to look elsewhere, where Christianity isn't considered a joyful flavour of Judaism?
This man is a nightmare. It's like having Steve Martin as Pope, without the fun.
I must, and will, be sad every day thinking of what has become of the Papacy, and at what Bergoglio – and probably a couple at least of his successors – will do to the Church. I am even sadder at clearly seeing that this scourge is God's punishment for our unbelief, our rebellion to simple rules, our demand that the prosperous world born of WWII have its cake and eat it, enjoying material prosperity and guilt-free licence with priestly approval.
All of it (the prosperity, the licence, and the priestly approval) punctually happened. Until the Modernist chicken came home to roost.
Today is, as I am told, Francis’ birthday.
I profit of this occasion to wish him many happy returns.
As Pontiff Emeritus, of course.
In a country – or a planet – that becomes more and more mired in its own stupid chase for easy emotions, a new low seems to have been reached with the New York judge (apparently a man; can’t imagine he is straight, though) deciding that in the “divorce” cause between two dykes (I’d love to see the photos of these beauties) the dog must be considered as if he were a baby; because you see, the dog does not belong to (duh) the owner of the dog, but must go to the dyke who can show that she provided to the “emotional needs” of the dog in the best way according to… the judge. In the end – the judge seems to think – dogs can certainly not be bought and sold, right? Can’t wait for the canine Wilberforce troops declaring pet shop owners slave masters and outright bastards.
The article has other funny points: the dog is now two years old but was bought when it was 10 weeks old; this shaves two and a half months out of the two years. At that point, the dykes were (how oh so romantic) “girlfriends”, and the dog was given as a consolation because one of the two had forced the other to… give away his pet (no, it’s not a grammatical mistake).
In the short space of nineteen and a half months, the dykes managed to get (or so they think) “married”, to divorce, and to bring the canine controversy to the judge.
I am impressed. These dykes are able of very stable relationships. Those with their dog, for example.
Cue one of the dykes coming all new age / hindu to us by stating about the dog: “He is my little soul mate, and there was no way in this lifetime I could ever live without him.” In this lifetime. Probably, she wants to reincarnate in a fatter dyke. Or perhaps in a dog.
Not that she is far away from that, mind. Two quarrelling dykes: can you imagine the bitchiness?
Cardinal Burke has given a longish interview to EWTN, and it was probably unavoidable for him to take a stance about at least some of the antics of Pope Diano, the Prince of (Bleeding) Hearts.
Burke has not minced words: to the invitation of Francis not to be “obsessed” with trivia like a yearly multiple Holocaust of unborn children, or sinsthat to Heaven for vengeance becoming tolerated and celebrated, Burke opposed his very candid view: we can “never talk enough” about abortion, and nothing is “more essential” than the natural law (here obviously it is also about sodomy).
Mind, though, he is not saying anything special. Every properly instructed teenager could say the same without effort. The shocking fact here is not that a Cardinal should state the obvious, but that the obvious is in blatant contradiction to the statement the Prince of Hearts keeps making without any regard for Catholicism or decency. I really, really fear we will one day reach the point where the Pope goes around saying unconscionable things and no one is scandalised because hey, that’s what he is and he is the Pope, right?
This time, Burke’s word were so simple but so clearly in opposition to Francis’ relentless search for popularity that an additional statement was sought from the Vatican. The answer was shocking and at the same time illuminating: the Pope thinks the same way as Cardinal Burke, we are told; it is only that the Holy Father is at times “not altogether easy to interpret”. Which is rather rich considering we are talking of a man who hasmade of “simplicity” his banner, but apparently can’t make himself clear in a simple way about the very basics. Which, by the way, isn’t true: whilst Francis is always unsophisticated in his way of expressing himself, his heresies and other antics have been very clear. When one states that, say, the biggest problem on earth is youth unemployment and the second the loneliness of old people there is nothing to “interpret”: the problem is in the mind that speak, not in the mouth that talks.
When I read the “not altogether easy to interpret” phrase I almost spilled my morning coffee on the keyboard, as the comedic value of such a statement is high indeed.
Look, this is a man who throws away carefully written speeches and homilies, written for him from people who understand Catholicism, whenever he feels like reinventing the wheel: should he at least not bear responsibility for what he says? Nor can it be said (anymore) that Francis was misunderstood, and notice that by saying that Francis is not easy to interpret the same Vatican sources are giving up and admitting it’s not possible anymore to simply blame the Press. No, the problem is – say Vatican sources – Francis himself. He just can’t make himself understood, poor man. I bet St. Francis never had the problem.
We have come to such a point of ridicule that not even the official defenders of Pope Diano feel they can do more for him. One does not see how they could, either: simple truths here, Francis’ rambling there, and an ETWN journalist calling you and asking which is which. What is a poor man to do? Eh, ah, oh, erm, he is not altogether easy to interpret, you know…
The ugly truth is that the Emperor is not only naked, but goes around blaspheming and saying obscenities of various kind. At last, Vatican sources have had to admit his dressing style is unconventional, or his language a tad challenging.
One would hope a Bishop of Rome who has made himself indefensible in such a way would start to get the message and at least stay very near to the script whenever a journalist’s pen or microphone (or camera) is near. But then again the problem is not in how Francis talks, is in how he thinks: in his heretical mind, namely, and love of popularity.
They try to sell us that Fancis is not easy to interpret. Actually, he is. The only thing one must do is listen to him and register what he says rather than what he should have said.
I have a very special wish for Santa Claus this year. In case you ask, it’s not a light blue convertible.
Vatican official says not to expect papal encyclical on poverty
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — An official at the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace said that, despite widespread news reports and the statement of an Italian bishop, he does not expect Pope Francis to write an encyclical on the subject of poverty. “If you asked (the pope) he would probably say to you, ‘Why do we need an encyclical? What is the encyclical supposed to tell us that we don’t already know?'” said Jesuit Father Michael Czerny. In May, Bishop Luigi Martella of Molfetta, Italy, wrote that the pope had recently told him and other bishops of Italy’s Puglia region that he was planning an encyclical on poverty, “understood not in an ideological and political sense, but in an evangelical sense.” The bishop said the encyclical would be called “Beati Pauperes” (“Blessed Are the Poor”). But Father Czerny told Catholic News Service the church is still digesting retired Pope Benedict XVI’s major contribution to the church’s teaching on the subject. “Less than five years ago, we had a superb social encyclical, ‘Caritas in Veritate,’ and I’m sure that Pope Francis agrees with every word of it. There is an amount of material in it that we could work on,” Father Czerny said. “It would keep us busy for 20 years.”
Mundabor’s interpretation of Father Czerny’s words:
“Evangelii Gaudium has shown such an incompetence, and has drawn such an amount of criticism, that the Pope has decided he will leave his Peronist rants to other kind of communications or documents, but will not face the unprecedented flak and the years of mockery that are sure to follow a Peronist Encyclical. Go and read Pope Ratzinger instead. Semel in anno, let’s play it safe”.
Well done, Your Holiness!
Silence is golden!
Once again, the Bishop of Rome has given worldwide scandal. I do not know whether it should be considered positive that soon no one will pay attention to the inordinate rambling of this unspeakable man, or whether people are slowly getting accustomed to an heretical Pope, which can’t be good.
In his relentless work of destruction of everything that is Catholic the Bishop of Rome, shamelessly reigning, attacks the most elementary basis of traditional Catholicism: the fear of the Lord.
I was once told the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, or wisdom. This means that if one does not have the fear of the Lord, he is a fool. Makes sense, I always thought. You can’t believe in the God of the Christians and not be in fear of what this God can do to you if you refuse to acknowledge Him or despise His commandments, or gravely contravene them. Yep, pretty basic stuff.
Obviously, If I believed in the Good Fairy In The Sky, or in the Great Pink Elephant Playing The Trombone, I would be more relaxed. The Fairy would certainly give me a lot of sweets and toys to play with after I die, and the Great Pink Elephant Playing The Trombone must be a gloriously friendly chap, from whom you can take trombone lessons for free, and you’re welcome. But I happen to believe in the God of the Christians, and this is a different God, one who immediately after death will decide whether I have merited terrible torments for all eternity in Hell or will, after the usual period of painful purification, be admitted to be happy with Him forever in Paradise. It makes sense that I should be rather scared, because this is not a driving license examination. There will be no second chance if I get it wrong. I mean, it would be extremely scary even for the driving license, imagine when eternity is at stake.
In short: If I get it seriously wrong, I will be screwed forever. If this does not inspire fear of the Lord, I do not know what will, but I know what kind of person one is that is not fittingly scared.
For twenty centuries, Christians all over the planet have considered this a fundamental tenet of Christian thinking. If the frequent warning of Jesus Himself were not enough, an extremely rich and coherent tradition has always reinforced the concept. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and he who ignores this reality is a fool.
Of course, I also have recourse to the theological virtue of Hope, by which I can reasonably trust that the Holy Ghost will give me sufficient graces to merit, one day, heaven. But Christianity properly intended has always understood this as a two-way street. I can hope because I both believe and do. My works born of faith are the foundation of my hope. I dare to trust on unmerited grace, but I must still move my ass and follow God’s commandments to the best of my ability.
As I see it – but I am not a theologian – it’s the same as prayer. Even when God wants to give me something, he may still want me to pray that I may have it. I can’t just sit there and wait for things to fall in my lap. I must both pray and act in order to align what I want with what God hopefully wants for me. Therefore, if I want, say, a job I will have to not only pray, but also move my posterior in the appropriate manner so that, in God’s good time, things may happen.
In the same way, I am invited to hope, because my works born of faith allow me to see that this trust is not mere fantasy, but is built on solid and reasonable ground. If I were to think that I can relax and do without the works (because hey, I have the faith providing me with the necessary grace) I would be a Lutheran. If, on the other hand, I were to think that I can merit salvation exclusively through my works – that is: without the need of God’s unmerited grace and necessary assistance – I would be a Pelagian.
The way Christianity has always worked is that one prays God for the gift of hope, and trusts in His graces, graces that we cannot even merit on our own; but at the same time one acts his part, and is wisely scared that he may behave in a way that does not merit him Heaven, because he well knows that if he starts to presume that he will be saved trouble can’t be far away. We can’t merit God’s grace, but it is expected from us that we move our backside anyway. One can have a sound optimism that God will not throw him with the reprobates, but one knows the fear of God’s wrath is a prime element of the behaviour that allows one to be soundly optimistic in the first place.
The child knows his father can punish him swiftly and in an exemplary manner. He may be a beautifully obedient child. Still, this knowledge will be with him always, and there is no denying it does play a role in helping the child to be dutiful. Let the dutiful child believe that the father would never punish him, and you are heading for trouble.
Unsurprisingly, this was seen as the beginning of knowledge, or wisdom. Then if you don’t get this, you truly are an idiot.
Which leads us nicely to Bishop Francis, who is reported with the following pearl of, well, not wisdom:
Do not be afraid of the final judgment of God, when the good will be separated from the bad, because Jesus will always be at our side, because we can rely on the intercession and the benevolence of the saints and because God ” did not send his Son to condemn , but to save ” and “”he who believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned,” and in this sense “the judgment has already begun”.
This is so incoherent, contradictory, and flying in the face of Christianity one does not even know where to begin. Already the first words, “do not be afraid of the final judgment of God” must have been very popular when the joint made the round in some Argentinian seminary, but are nothing to do with Christianity. If there’s something Christians always had and were taught since they were little children is the fear of the final judgment of God.
It would appear “someone” does go to Hell, but it is difficult to see who: atheists who follow their conscience are famously OK; Jews are – says Pope Diana – still part of the Covenant so they can deny Christ and eat kosher at their heart’s content, under Francis’ expert supervision; Muslims are a religion of peace and believe in the same God – says Francis, not I – so they should be fine, too. As for the Christians, they must do nothing else than “rely on the intercession and the benevolence of the Saints”. Hey, “he who believes in him is not condemned”.
Further references are made to wholesale salvation through faith alone: one must only “embrace Jesus” and “all fear and doubt vanishes and leaves a deep joy and expectation”. This sounds like the talk of a drunken Presbyterian, certainly not of a Pope. A Pope should tell you that you either are in mortal sin or you aren’t, and whether you “luv Jesus” is neither here nor there. Many will be surprised on that day. I think Francis has good chances of being the most surprised of them all.
Fornicator? Adulterer? Sodomite? Who is Francis to judge? You are saved by faith Alone! Works of Faith? Obedience? No, no, no!He who believes is not condemned! Why would God throw you in hell? Such a waste!
But then it becomes even funnier, because now Francis tells us that “whoever does not believe in Him is already condemned”. Heck, this must include, then, his Jewish buddy, most of the members of the so-called “religion of peace”, and that nice chap Eugenio with whom he so loves to have a chat every now and then! What about following one’s conscience now? Yesterday’s snow?
And in general, what kind of person is this? Have you ever seen a public personage so relying on his own popularity that he would contradict himself in the most blatant of ways and not be concerned in the least? One day atheists are saved, another day they are already condemned. One day you are a criminal akin to a murderer if you gossip, another provided you love Christ you must be afraid of nothing. One day you can’t love Jesus without loving the Church, another day if you love Jesus you are fine regardless. Francis gives the impression of an old man rambling just for the excitement of the microphones around him, totally unconcerned or even unaware of all the rubbish he is unloading.
I say it again: evil or stupid. It seems to me whichever of the two he is, he is to a high degree.
The US Bishops have launched a multi-faceted initiative aimed at strengthening Catholic identity in the Country.
One can only look at such initiatives with favour, also because none of them appear to be of the unCatholic/populistic/controversial sort (like for example encouraging illegal immigration). Still, one cannot avoiding noticing that even when it would be easy to demand a certain behaviour (= meatless Friday) the US Bishops stop short of doing it and prefer to remain by the “encouragement”.
Meatless Friday is a traditional Catholic penance; it is nothing earth-shattering, or extravagant; it has been already reintroduced in other Countries, like the United Kingdom.
Past generations well knew that these little but constant reminders not only of Christ's sacrifice for us, but of our Catholic identity and culture do help, in time, to properly shape a man. Past generations, who did not have fridges or freezers, were asked to conform themselves to such small rules. It is not clear to me why it should be too much to ask that modern US-Americans do the same rather than merely encourage them to do so.
If the clergy of one country thinks even such small obligations are too much to ask, how can they I do not say demand, but even make their faithfuls aware of grave problems like politicians aiding and abetting abortion, sodomy, one day euthanasia? If one refuses to obey in the small things, how will he obey in the bigger ones?
I hope the US bishops will soon see the logic of this reasoning, and start the long work of reshaping Catholic identity by demanding that their faithful live by rules – starting from the small ones – that have served past generations so well.
Bring back the meatless Friday. Remind people every week of what they are, and what they stand for.
The Friday Abstinence reblog
For all of us living in the UK< today is a rather historical day, as for the first time in ages the obligation to make penance on Friday by abstaining from meat is reintroduced.
The importance of this goes, if you ask me, beyond the mere fact, and extends to the clear signal (eve here in the UK) to recover traditional Catholic practice. The recovery of the practice will, in time, give a great contribution to the recovery of the values.
We have seen it happening the other way round decades ago, when the immense patrimony of Catholic devotions and usages was suddenly discarded as old, not in keeping with the time and, in a world, unpleasant for a Church desperately – and disgracefully – seeking for popularity.
Today, here in the UK – and, no doubt, in many other Countries in the years to come – a public…
View original post 207 more words
Good and shocking news reach us today from India. The good news is that, certainly going against the trend of at least the stupid, corrupted, utterly amoral West the Indian Supreme Court has de facto reinstated sodomy laws in the country by banning the law that abolished them.
The shocking news is that, of all people, the Indian Cardinal Gracias should complain about it.
We really live in an upside down world. A Cardinal should very well know that a sin is an action (or thought or omission, but here we are interested in the action, and it is the act of sodomy that is a criminal offence, not being an inverted) that offends God, and therefore the Church should approve every action from foreign legislative or judiciary bodies that introduces or upholds punishment for the most atrocious offences, as they align at least in tendency the civil society – even of prevalently non-Christian countries – to Christian values.
I will never tire to repeat that the laws of one generation shape the morality of the following one, and it is in fact no surprise that only one generation went from considering the sin of the Sodomites worthy of criminal punishment to considering it a criminally neutral behaviour, and in another generation or less the same behaviour once considered worthy of jail time is now considered – or on the brink of being considered – even worthy of legal protection.
This did not happen by chance, of course, but in part thanks to the silence or utter complicity of the clergy, among whom Cardinal Gracias is an egregious example.
One must, in fact, wonder where the Cardinal has left his sense of shame, provided he ever had one. We are talking here of such abominations – akin to the raping of children, or to incest – that up to one and a half generation ago the very fact was only mentioned in the most indirect and least shocking of ways, and only when absolutely necessary. Not so for the good (or rather, bad) Cardinal, who should be asked why he does not intervene in public to defend, say, the decriminalisation of incest among consenting adults.
I note in his very stupid defence of perversion, the Cardinal states that he has “full respect for homosexuals”. He clearly considering sodomy an obvious and inevitable corollary of being a pervert, as the law in question does not punish being homosexual, but merely the act of sodomy. Interesting. The Cardinal should read a catechism when he has time. Or perhaps he should ask that sex with children be decriminalised, as the impulse to sexual acts in child rapists is at least as strong as the one to sodomy by sodomites; this, apart from the fact that not infrequently the child rapist is also homosexual.
Note, though, that Cardinal Gracias is another member of the “gang of eight”, and it appears Francis has carefully handpicked them so that the upside-down-ing of the Church may go on undisturbed. It can also be that nowadays every such “gangbanger” feels he could be the next one in charge, and feels the need to promote his, ahem, “Francis II” credentials. I am being malicious, you say? As Giulio Andreotti used to reply: those who think ill of others commit a sin, but are often right…
As we write the Year of Our Lord 2013, Church prelates all over the world publicly and enthusiastically embrace the values of the secular and perverted society, whilst it is left to the judiciary of foreign countries to uphold the most elementary morality. It truly beggars belief that only 55 years could reduce the Bride of Christ to such a state.
Poor Holy Mother Church, in the hands of people like Bergoglio, Marx, Maradiaga, Gracias and yes, Ricca…
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
John 15: 18-19
He who has followed with any degree of attention – and with at least a modicum of realism – the events of the last nine months cannot have any doubt as to why Francis is so popular among the wrong crowd.
The last worldly recognition, “Man of the Year” (I still say it in English), is another clear indication of what is happening. “Time” has not given Francis the recognition because his stubborn defence of Catholicism has earned him at least the respect of the world; quite the contrary is the case, as Francis is clearly praised for his work of demolition of the Papacy in particular, and Catholicism in general. The initial presentation of the man in the readers' section (readers get to vote, though not to decide, so every candidate has his own profile) stated Francis has gone against Catholic dogma. This obvious nonsense has been in the meantime corrected, but it goes a long way in explaining why “Time” and the world so much love Francis.
In fact, Francis does not deny dogma, but I personally have no doubt he would if he could. Just look at his many heretical statements to see how uncomfortable the man is with even basic Catholicism. Catholic doctrine just does not match with the workings of this man's mind. If the Depositum Fidei were his to “update”, I have no doubt whatsoever he would on a number of issues, from salvation outside the Church to the primacy of conscience to the attitude towards homosexuality to mention just three.
Francis is the sellout of the year. He has decided to side with the world in such a spectacular fashion that the entire planet had to notice, and could not avoid becoming enthusiastic about it.
Is it a surprise the world loves him as its own?
I invite all my gentle readers to follow the link to the Eponymous Flower and from there follow the link to the petition for the resignation of Father Fidenzio Volpi from his position of Apostolic Commissioner of the FFI.
In writing this I am perfectly aware that the ultimate responsible of the mess is not Father Volpi, but the Bishop of Rome itself. Still, it is good at times to – as we say in Italy – speak to the wife so that the mother in law may understand.
Francis is actively promoting the slow suicide of the Church, as abundantly seen from the recent of the Dutch bishops, whom he invited to be more attentive to social issues in one of the most welfare-led countries of the planet. he also told them we have only seen half the work of the V II. This is why, I add, the Church in the Netherland is still alive, albeit moribund. Let Francis finish his work and see what has remained of it.
In this perspective, it is obvious that a bunch of extremely successful, prospering rosary-counting Pelagians (actually: all such groups are prospering; even the SSPX, kept in the darkest corner as they are) cannot be tolerated by our ‘umble Bishop, hence the action.
I invite you to follow the links and sign the petition.
Heavens, de Mattei is good…
We already know that the Bishop of Rome is an expert in Jewish dietary and other rules; so much so in fact, that he insists his Jewish Rabbi, the pro-homo Skorka chap, follows them strictly, lest he should one day be tempted to convert to Catholicism (convert a Jew? No, no, no!).
It now appears Francis was given a rare opportunity to publicly learn the salient parts of the Koran in what impinges the “peace” element of the funnily named “religion of peace”.
It is good that the Pope is contradicted in public, and charitably helped to form sound opinions. If he does not want to learn in the privacy of his own desk, he will be forced to be taught in public.
Still, I somewhat doubt Francis will be a good pupil. To accept reality concerning Islam would stay massively in the way of the sugary “Lady Diana cum Nelson Mandela” image he is trying to promote.
Francis applies to Islam the same thinking that he applies to the rapid decay of Christianity in the West: if it isn’t convenient, it must be ignored or attributed to not having done enough. It’s never anyone’s faults, but Capitalism’s.
“Supreme Catholic intransigence is nothing but supreme Catholic charity. This supreme charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when, for his good, the guilty neighbor is crossed, humiliated, upset and chastised.
This supreme charity is practiced in relation to the common good when, to protect another from the contagion of evil, intransigence is used to denounce the promoters of evil, unmasking them as wicked and perverse and holding them up to public contempt, horror and execration. If it is possible, the one exercising intransigence should request the zeal of the public force [police] to contain and punish these evildoers.
Finally, supreme charity is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary for the one exercising intransigence to put aside all human considerations, to trample underfoot all human respect, to sacrifice all human interests, and risk even life itself to attain such a high end.”
Fr. Felix Sardá y Salvany, “Liberalism is a Sin”,
[it is] “completely unacceptable and profoundly wrong to look down on, belittle, isolate and cast out those who have different sexual orientations. Homophobia is a huge sin.”
Mr Justin Welby, so-called Archbishop of Canterbury
That ridiculous tool in drags going around under the usurped name of “Archbishop of Canterbury” has given another little proof of his total ignorance of the very basics of Christianity.
He is quoted by Vatican Insider with the following words:
[it is] “completely unacceptable and profoundly wrong to look down on, belittle, isolate and cast out those who have different sexual orientations. Homophobia is a huge sin.”
“Mundabor” – they used to say at school – “what does the author want to say”?
He wants to say the following:
1. Every “looking down” of “belittling” of a faggot is “homophobia”. (Yes, ma’am; this is very gay).
2. God makes faggots, as it is clear from the context in which he uses the word “orientation”.
3. To “belittle” a faggot is a huge sin, but we are not told what the sin of the sodomites is. Hey, it’s an “orientation”, though, so come on…
Welby is the typical example of the effeminate society we live in; a society for which God’s laws count for nothing, and the protection of perverts come to the point that even the “belittling” is a “very grave sin”. One would be tempted to ask Mrs Justine what a “sin” is according to her. It can’t be what displeases God, then in this case sodomy would be right there at the top.
It must be what displeases modern sensitivities. Then the wannabe archbishop in rags is spot on. Very grave indeed.
This man is seriously confused. Or perhaps a closet homosexual.
Just what the so-called “c of e” needs to go to hell as soon as possible.
That notorious den of iniquity and perversion, the BBC, informs us more and more men in California use that strange tentative, “I am not really sure of what I’m saying” tone effected by raising the pitch at the end of the sentence.
I did not know the phenomenon (totally unknown in my neck of the wood) until I came in contact with Americans who had a strange way of answering your question, almost as if they were asking a question themselves rather than give an answer. This was not only by straight answers, but by every expression of opinion or judgment, often mixed with qualifiers like “I suppose” or “I guess”. I heard it mostly from women, but also from men, and whilst it might have had a girly charm in a woman (particularly if young) I found it extremely emasculated in a man.
Question: “Where do you come from?”
Answer: “Los Angeles?”
John Wayne, it ain’t.
It now appears the trend is spreading. How can you be surprised? More and more boys are growing in dysfunctional families, either without a father or with an absent one, whilst the schools have less and less male teachers. Even the priest is – probably if you are a catholic, and very probably if you aren’t – not a model of masculinity. These poor boys, who must in many cases nowadays not even be allowed to play “Cowboys and Indians” by their politically correct, possibly men-hating single mothers, will forcibly grow up in an effeminate environment. Worse, in an environment where masculinity is seen as threatening, or otherwise not desired. Is it a surprised that these poor boys grow up speaking like girls? They speak like girls because, even if the environment will not succeed in make of most of them faggots, it will succeed in making them sissies. A life of whining and bitching awaits them, in which the expectation of handouts from the ever-growing State will prevail over the traditional masculine virtues of going out there “hunting”, possibly taking risks and always accepting responsibilities, and seeing themselves as the providers and protectors of the women in their life. Make no mistake, such a sissy is very likely to vote Obama and his successors for his entire life, expecting the Government to take over every aspect of his life whilst he waffles about women’s rights.
Your typical product of the Californian liberal-single-mother culture (I shudder at thinking how many they must be, sipping their caramel faggoty skinny latte macchiato grande at the nearest Starbucks while making burnt offerings on the altar of inclusiveness) will clearly absorb the ways of their mothers and their (bitchy; yes, bitchy; yes, I know it) female friends and start to behave accordingly.
The Starbucks generation is upon us. Clearly, they’ll have to rely on the Government as their provider.
A UK tribunal has decided, in its goodness, that Sunday observance is a fundamental part of Christian belief and can therefore not be treated by the employer like any other day.
It seems good news, and at least isn't a bad one; but it truly tells one how far we have come in the decomposition of Christianity in what used to be the Dowry of Mary, and is now more like the Garden of Satan.
Could you imagine such a controversy 100, 50 or even 25 years ago? The time is rapidly approaching when a majority of people will question the Sunday exactly as they question the condemnation of sodomy. I would be tempted to say most Christians in this country do not care for the Third Commandment, but it is probably more accurate to say most Christians in this Country do not know the ThirdCommandment, and I wonder how many among the baptised know that there are commandments at all. I kid you not. I heard people say that they “suppose” they are baptised. They suppose that they are baptised. It boggles the mind.
Christianity has been reduced to a party and shopping frenzy once a year. It has become an extremely thin varnish of goodism that means perfectly nothing, and to which very probably the entirety of the inhabitants of Sodom would have subscribed without hesitation. The number of atheists has grown very large, and many of them are very aggressive.
In this climate, the real surprise is that such kind of challenges to Christian thinking as questioning the very Sunday have not come before.
I do not expect to die when Sunday still has a special role of any sort. A country that it only legalises, but celebrates sodomy will not stop in front of the Sunday. They merely need to forget Christianity just a bit more. Hey, it's convenient to have the shops open on a Sunday, right? On the seventh day, God did not go to Sainsbury's.
Meanwhile, clowns like the so-called Archbishop Welby and our own Disgrace in Chief will keep waffling about social justice. Congratulations.
I have not examined in detail the Bishop of Rome's words about the death of Lady Diana Mandela, though I do not doubt on close examination they will prove shallow to atrocious.
I am old enough to remember when Nelson Mandela was in jail because of terrorist activity, though if you asked the average illiterate teenager of today I doubt they would know what a terrorist is in the first place.
I also remember Mandela was the head of a communist (read my lips: communist) organisation, and that his second wife Winnie was for years at the head of a group of gangbanger thugs murdering around under the implicit protection of the Great Icon, who needed an awful lot of persuasion to finally decide to dump her, his new status of messiah of the liberal masses not being really compatible with the murderous harridan.
In addition, one cannot forget this is the man responsible for plunging South Africa in such a state of corruption, violence and economy-hampering affirmative action that you wonder whether any fool, picked randomly from the madhouse, would not have done better, only because he would not have needed to enrich countless members of his vast clan.
Potentially murderous terrorist. Communist. Complicit in mafia-like activity. Corrupt or conniving with corruption. This is not the stuff of a Christian hero.
Yes, Mandela did some things very right, but I wonder whether he had any alternative. It was undoubtedly wise to steer the country on a path of reconciliation, but the alternative would have been for the Whites – vastly superior in training, wealth, armament, and discipline – to massacre the Blacks like it's going out of fashion and go back to square… minus three, so the open confrontation and official settling of bills never had a chance; something, this, that Mandela must have known every day of his life.
Better, far better to play Gandhi and enrich the entire “entourage” in the process.
I know, I know. There is still merit in making wise decisions. Not many communist terrorists make them after all. I'll give him that. But come on, 27 years of jail generally help a lot in developing this kind of wisdom. Mandela had the wisdom to choose icon status and vast embezzling for his clan over fight to the death, which – he knew that very well – would have been swift. Wise, yes. But so extraordinary? People who marry for the third time at 80 tend not to look for martyrdom for the cause.
It is now being widely publicised Mandela was also – what do you expect from a communist terrorist? – responsible for a U-turn on abortion. Truly, this is Lady Diana with the little black dress.
Has Francis taken account of it? Where did he live before the early Nineties? I remember a lot about Mandela pre-icon status, and he is a couple of decades older than I.
Oh well. Critical thinking is unfit for this age. Shameless stirring of feel-good emotions is what the mob demands, as when people stop believing in God their need to feel good with themselves – another manifestation of extreme self-centredness – becomes extreme.
Francis knows it. He knows how they feel. He probably – not being a monster of depth – even thinks like them. He is the Pope for our times: shallow, populist, addicted to popularity, willing to sing with the secular choir, and eager to be approved by the wrong crowd. Nelson Mandela died! Let us feel good everybody!
When Francis meets His maker, he will be hailed as the White Lady Diana.
By the same communists, atheists, abortionist and assorted libtards now praising Nelson Mandela.
P. S. Mandela did not bring Apartheid to end. Not a bit. Decades of economic sanctions led by the baddy, baddy Western States did. Learn your history if you haven't lived it.