Monthly Archives: January 2014
Decidedly, breathtaking hypocrisy is another mark of the Bishop of Rome.
Having decided it is now time to give some bird food to the Neocon pigeons, Francis has looked for something orthodox in Pope Paul VI's archives and has come out with very fitting words about the necessity of being faithful to the Church, and uphold her doctrine. He has also told the Notre Shame people one can't do what he wants with doctrine. Fitting words, indeed.
Only problem is that his entire papacy is in blatant contradiction to his words. Let me state this once again, so that it does not look like it was a slip of the keyboard: this man's hypocrisy is breathtaking.
This blog could consist entirely of refutations of the infinite, almost daily ways in which this man either denies Christ, or insults the Blessed Virgin, or sabotages Church teaching, or expresses himself in a confused and at times outright creepy way. The last post was just yesterday evening, and it would shame every Papacy alone. Please note I try to write about other issues too; but by the barrage of nonsense we get from the man it gets rather difficult at times.
This is the same man who now has the insolence of telling us that we must be faithful to what the Church teaches.
Is the Pope a Jesuit?
Yes. Quite the Jesuit.
I read around an appeal to getting rid of one's TV set in order to avoid exposure to the abominations of our times, now represented in growing measure even in mainstream programmes like, say, the Grammys.
Allow me to say why I disagree.
Firstly, I would say that if it is undeniably true that the TV set can be the source of inappropriate or outright perverted content, this is the more true for the Internet, which makes filth of all kind far more easily available, around the clock to boot. If, therefore, I had to throw away my TV set, I would have to get rid of my Internet connection first. Which would be unusual, since I write a blog and rely on the Internet access of other people to be read, and on mine to run a blog in the first place.
Secondly, I have no qualms with the TV set, but I do rarely watch TV these days. The fact is, a TV set can be used to watch perfectly fine DVDs, play video games, watch learning material, and so on, providing countless hours of perfectly innocent entertainment or even useful education. What about my dear collection of Walt Disney Classics, then? No Cinderella, Snow White or 101 Dalmatians anymore? No “Passion of the Christ” during Holy Week? No history documentaries? No football, cricket, Formula 1, you name it? An Italian who doesn't watch at least a bit of football should have his citizenship revoked. Well, you know what I mean.
Thirdly, the argument reminds me of those who want to ban weapons, because “weapons kill”. No they don't. Humans kill. How many knives do you have in the kitchen? How about that meat cleaver? Should we ban it, too?
“Ah”, you will say, “this is all fine in itself; but then it is so easy for the wrong content to creep in!”. Look, it is life that makes the wrong content creep in, and it is much better to teach one's child – and oneself – to look for the right content and have the right frame of mind, than trying an escape from a reality of modern filth that will never succeed anyway.
In London, Stonewall regularly has ads put on the underground and on buses. No child can escape them, and it makes no sense to try to protect the young from the reality of filth. Politicians talk of sexual perversion all the time, and their words are reported by radio and newspapers, even in the morning.
No radio, then? No newspapers?
Speaking of children: at some point, the child will ask anyway what “same sex marriage” or “homophobia” are supposed to mean, and then you'll have to give an answer or your child's liberal teacher will give it for you, earlier in life than you can imagine. Far better, then, to have this child in front of the TV set watching the “passion of the Christ”, or the DVD about the Tridentine Mass, or a documentary about the Roman Empire, or a game of Chelsea FC come to that.
This, of course, presupposes control. But it has always been this way. As I was a child, my parents decided if and how long I could sit in front of the TV set, to the minute. There is no reason whatever this should not be done now. If one hasn't the time to properly supervise the children, the problem is that he cannot supervise his children, not the TV set.
We can't shut ourselves, or our loved ones, out of life. Life will enter our and their world anyway. Rather, use the TV set, the Internet, the radio and whatever will come in future as an instrument to make this world cleaner and better for you and them, and to live a better life.
You are, in fact, doing it just now, as you are using the Internet to read a Catholic blog.
The TV set isn't a pervert. Perverts are.
You will not believe this article, coming from the British “The Independent”.
Let me give you some background. The “Independent” is the newspaper for the reds who feel they are too fine to buy the “Guardian”, a newspaper still stinking too much, to their finely educated noses, of assembly line and coal mine. Let us say you are a half-employed “social worker” from a professional background, married to a “chariteee” worker but coming from a wealthier background (say: papa was a lawyer or an accountant, but you wanted to change the world so you wasted your best years on useless rubbish instead). If you are, you will almost invariably suffer from the awful lot of relatives now earning vastly more than you do. Therefore, you are very likely to lament the lack of fairness in the world, complain about “social justice”, and read the “Independent”. These are the people concerned about the “Chelsea tractors” because too many of their relatives and neighbours drive one, and who are constantly claiming moral superiority to compensate their obvious failure in life and utter uselessness in the real, hard-working, added-value-creating world. If, instead, your papa was a factory worker, a coal miner or a waiter, you will probably read the “Guardian”, and be at least a much less frustrated human being. In short, the “Independent” is the newspaper for the declining middle-class with the worst of both world: the airs of the bourgeoisie, without the moolah to support them. You know the type. They’re everywhere. The gift of the Sixties to humanity.
These geniuses of the “Independent” now have an article about the plight of those poor, poor people who go around butchering almost born children, and suffer so much from the lack of understanding of the population; because – as it turns out – even most abortion supporters do not like them, at all.
Spare a thought for the poor bastards. They are exposed to the constant threats of those savage animals claiming, of all things, that a baby cannot be butchered in the womb. Let a tear escape from your weary eye as you read that eight of them had to suffer what they themselves do to babies all the time, albeit certainly the doctors suffered much less. Ah, the poor lambs! And they so good! Think: one of them was killed as he was going to church! To church, do you understand? We really, really should reconsider our judgment* of these people! We are even told they fulfil a, sort of, erm, er, humanitarian role. You see, those babies they butcher to pieces are “gone horribly wrong” (erm, I mean, the “pregnancy” has gone horribly wrong; they wouldn’t say so easily “the baby is wrong, so he must die”).
The fact is, these people live in a world of strict tolerances, like an inspector in a German quality control department. If a specimen is not on par with the specifications, it must be discarded. They do it with tyres too, I am told, so where’s your beef?
“Of course”, they say, “these late abortion happen late for a reason!”. They are, you see, substandard
tyres babies specimens who have not satisfied their parent’s quality test! What’s a humanitarian doctor to do in these cases? Crush the baby’s head and dismember him one piece at a time, of course! You don’t want a sub-standard specimen to be born, surely? What Would Audi Do?
Notice, now, the sympathetic picture of Dr Carhart as he looks pensively out of the window, his face the picture of dignified silence in the face of calumny. He looks far, far away, towards a future when an unborn baby will be butchered in peace, without any obnoxious, as the Independent says, “anti-choice” (truly satanic, this one) fanatic putting himself in the way of a honest humanitarian, erm, business.
Dr Carhart doesn’t get the “american hero” picture, though. This honour goes to Dr Tiller, killed by a pro-lifer whilst, as already said, fulfilling his duty of exemplary Christian. Jesus wept. Or not, as the case may be.
Basically, Dr Tiller is a martyr of modern Nazidom. How moving.
Now, clearly this blog does not endorse the murdering of late-term baby butchers. Not even when they themselves endorse and execute the butchering of countless unborn babies. But there is a huge gulf between not approving the unlawful killing of people, however bad (or very bad; or worse) they may be, and the apology of the butchering of unborn babies, and the pathetic attempt to present the executioners as the victims put in place by this – luckily for “Fran”, not aborted – leftist hack and by those like her.
I should, in fact, be shocked at the very idea there would be people for which the “Audi thinking” simply applies to humans. Vorsprung durch Abtreibung! Still, I read too much about these people in my blogging activity to be surprised at the very existence of people like that. This, my friends, is the construction material of hell, with all the bricks and mortar in place.
This is hell as it lives, breathes, and writes.
* we do “judging” on this blog. It’s because we think, you see. If you don’t like it, click away now.
I have removed, for obvious reasons, the link to “Ars Orandi”, thus leaving a free place in my very exclusive (in the sense of: short) list of endorsed blogs.
The choice has fallen on “Traditional Catholic Priest”, the excellent blog of Father Carota, discovered some time ago thanks to the suggestion of a kind reader.
I can – obviously – not say I always agree with everything Father says – as a coincidence, he has juts posted an invitation to get rid of one’s TV set, with which I happen not to agree -, but I have no doubts this is a blog not only of exceptional quality, but very candid in its defence of Traditionalism. A truly edifying and refreshing reading.
Those of you who do not know this blog could do much worse than to follow the link on the right hand side, under “Blogroll”, and discover a pearl of the Catholic blogosphere.
The video above comes from the excellent blog of Louie Verrecchio. Once again, Mr Verrecchio says it better than I ever could, so I thought I would not deprive my readers of this pearl. If the video does not work on your screen, the link will lead you directly to it.
The video is short, and I really suggest to watch it to the end.
I allow myself to only add a little detail: shortly after the 1:00 mark, Francis addresses a greeting to “the Muslims of the entire world, our brothers”. Then, he stops and openly encourages an applause or cheer, which is denied to him in the most evident manner. If dozen of thousand of Italians had cheered, the noise would have been deafening. As it is, he gets the faintest of courtesy claps, possibly from the clergy present.
It’s good to see not everyone is blind, and willing to follow this obviously blind man.
Enjoy the video.
I remember very well my sadness at the rapid disappearance – and most people said: inevitable extinction – of the traditional mechanical wristwatch in favour of the new quartz one. It seemed to me an entire world was dying, and an entire planet was embracing a soulless technology and killing the beauty, the magic and, yes, the poetry of craftsmanship. Small firms – then – like Blancpain and Chronoswiss decided this was too stupid, and the surrender to the power of quartz by no means unavoidable. They started producing watches for people who love beauty, and do not live by the second. This was the turning of the tide. A few years later, the mechanical wristwatch was already established as the timepiece at the wrist of the discerning – if, back then, pretty solvent – man of taste. Today, mass production of perfectly affordable, excellent mechanical wristwatches is all but back, and back with a vengeance in terms of general quality and value for money.
Then there was the matter with Communism. Once progressing all over Africa, rolling over vast part of Asia, heavily influencing South America and even infecting many countries in Western Europe, its advancement seemed unstoppable. In those years, the US administration spoke of “containment” of Communism, as if a tsunami was obviously coming their way and the only thing they could do was to avoid being flattened by the impact. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher changed all this. In my eyes, Reagan’s election was the turning of the tide. Ten years later, Communism was all but bankrupt.
Then there was the “global warming” craze, by 2006 the pet ideal of the stupid and by 2008 clearly advanced to State Religion in countries like the UK. A few people kept swimming against this immense tide, unafraid. I mention here the Cato Institute with its brilliant work, and most of all an homosexual, Proto-communist, far leftist environmentalist with the rare courage to recognise he had been completely wrong all the time: Bjorn Lomborg, the author of “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg was persecuted for years, as the Climate Mafia tried to deprive him of income and dignity. He was, last time I look, vindicated, and the new religion was – thanks also to new taxes, heavily challenging the masses who are only in favour of “good causes” when they do not have to pay for it – dead and buried by 2011. This time, the turning of the tide was, even, exceptionally fast.
Another tide is now turning: abortion. One must be blind not to see that what seemed only twenty years ago an unchangeable “new reality” all over the West, but particularly in Western Europe, is now crumbling under the pressure of a new generation of people not ready to accept murder as a way to solve a problem, and not willing to swallow the tales of the self-serving murderesses. This was a slow turning, and it will unfold very slowly in the other direction; but it’s undeniably there. What changed matters here is more difficult to point out. The army of aging women haunted by abortions committed decades before certainly played a significant role; the demographic also helped; the beautiful work of John Paul II was without doubt another big factor. This was a very slow turning, but I don’t think any Cuomo or Obama will be able to do anything against it.
And then there is another tide, that has not turned yet: Sodomy. As perverts and their helpers advance in the Western countries and try to have perversions recognised as human right, a strong opposition develops. Russia, under Putin’s guide, exposes the West’s godless stupidity with admirable energy, and may it long last. Many African countries refuse the drink the homosexual Kool-aid. Resistance develops in countries like France. I am under no illusion that the turning of the tide will come soon here. Rather, years of bitter fight await us. I am also afraid it will get worse before it gets better, as I see Italy unable to resist to the new wave of sugary goodism, and rapidly advancing towards legal protection of sodomy under the benevolent look of the “who am I to judge” Pope. It will get worse before it gets better, but when it gets better it will be because of those who have not shut up when it was very bad; and if we were to shut up now, who knows when it will become better.IN the matter of sodomy, I think the wake-up call will come when the children “adopted” by them will turn up to be victim of sexual abuses in percentages unknown among heteros. Unless, of course, by that time things will be bad enough that no one will be able to see the problem in the first place. hey, if forty years ago anyone had told me one day sodomy would be celebrated, I’d had laughed out loud, too.
Still, let us not lose courage, and let us stay in good spirits.
The same as for the watches, communism, global warming and abortion, one day this tide will turn, too.
The Rosary Crusade Reblog
The SSPX has now released the anticipated details about the 2014 Rosary Crusade.
All details here.
I will not repeat the very useful and complete information you will find on the site. Still, please note the following:
1. As Francis invites you not to pray by rote, and ridicules those who count rosaries, it is the more important we react to this devotional barbarism by increasing our efforts not only to pray the Rosary, but to reestablish Tradition.
2. From the site:
The three-fold object of this Rosary Crusade for the good of the entire Catholic Church is:
To implore from the Immaculate Heart of Mary a special protection for the traditional apostolate;
For the return to Tradition within the Church;
For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the consecration of Russia.
The insertion of the consecration of Russia will certainly be welcome to many…
View original post 92 more words
You would not believe what is happening in France these days.
The woman who accepted to become the mistress of a man living with another concubine plays victim because another woman has now accepted to become the mistress of the same man. All three of them grown up – at least anagraphically – and with children.
The same First Concubine, who tried to play the forgiving partner for the sake of the five servants, the life of luxury, and the international prominence, has now been pretty unceremoniously kicked out. She was only the concubine, you see, so no big formalities here. Adieu, servants who cater to her every whim. Adieu, photo-ops at the side of the powerful husband (eh? Oh, sorry, mistake!). Adieu, meeting with the Obamas next month. She would have looked so good beside man-jawed Michelle O., her dear, dear friend! Their conversations on “how to house-train your husband” were so funny!
As to the Child President, he must have had with some trusted functionary a conversation of this kind: “look, Monsieur le President: it’s clear you can’t keep your little friend in your pants, and it is only a matter of time before another woman takes the place of this actress. It would, therefore, be much wiser to keep the palace free from concubines and mistresses of all sorts. When the time comes to take the next toy on board, the noise will be greatly reduced. You want to stand for re-election one day, n’est-ce que pas?”
The President – who is a child, but an ambitious one – realised these were wise words, and decided to henceforward become officially single, though with the – how banal – actress on the side. He now has the double advantage of getting rid of the old witch without having another one squatting on the Élysée palace and making his life miserable. That should make for a happy child for a while.
Oh, about the witch… It turns out Ms Trierweiler is affectionately called “Rottweiler” by those who know and, as far as it goes, love her, and her stern behaviour towards her man-child is now becoming universally known. Apparently, on one particular interview Monsieur Hollande made the big mistake of mentioning – as in: mentioning – his once lawfully non-wedded quasi-wife, Ségolène, and later complained with the interviewing journalist the Rottweiler would now make his life hell for that; and he said this in all seriousness, and allegedly bleaching as soon as he realised his faux pas. Granted, the rumours of great devastations and damage in the Palace from the angry she-dog in a horrible bout of Rottweilerhood have been denied, but the entire country seems to have considered the tale of 2.5 million Euro damage credible for a moment. Go figure.
I am, therefore, probably not the only one to think Madame Rottweiler will now submerge Monsieur le Président under a tsunami of unsavoury revelations, and … bite him as hard as she can. As the Bard said, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Particularly – though the Bard didn’t say this – when she is a Rottweiler.
So there you are: an angry Rottweiler now unceremoniously kicked out of the extremely luxurious kennel; a first-mistress-in-waiting who will not be allowed to be one, and is now also unceremoniously relegated to the role of First Booty Call; and, most tragically, a man who is called to lead a great Western power and is such a spineless child that he is terrified of his concubine, even to the point of paling for having pronounced in an interview the name of his once lawfully wedded wife.
This bunch of children, sluts, and witches is a perfect representative of the liberal society; people who play the good and tolerant whilst they destroy families, behave like children or sluts, live for the notoriety and power and fake prestige their bed companions give them, or are such spineless jerks they are afraid of their own mistress even as they control nuclear weapons.
Are you surprised these people reflect that kind of society always ready to attack Catholicism, and to glorify sexual perversion? What do you expect from a President like that: that he upholds traditional morality?
France is, hopefully, waking up to the kind of infinite ass they have sent to the Élysée Palace. One hopes for the future they will elect I do not say chaste men – not much hope of that in France, anyway – but at least men decent enough to know what is right and what is wrong, with some respect for Christian values, and possibly with some balls to boot.
Still, it’s a democracy, and in a democracy you just get what you deserve.
Enjoy the show, France. Enjoy the motherload of manure the Rottweiler will unload on your President, most of it very probably deserved. Enjoy the spectacle of the man you have put at the top of a Nuclear Power behaving like a capricious child, and he in his Sixties. Bask in the knowledge he was terrified of his mistress, and is possibly only looking for the next woman of whom to be terrified – pussies don’t change, you see; not at that age -. Wait for the next instalment of this Old Children Saga, showing you once again how rotten your society has become.
Still… perhaps there is hope. Perhaps the healthy part of France will in the next years manage to carry others on the right side. Perhaps this pit of insolence, stupidity, immorality and sheer childishness will serve to wake up some people, and wake in the French nation a new desire for at least basic decency. The Manif pour Tous is an excellent start, and it is branching out in other countries, like Italy.
For the moment, though, the French will have to cope with an angry Rottweiler, a Fitst Booty Call, and a Pussy President.
It won’t be pretty.
And it came to pass “Rolling Stone”, last time I looked not a beacon of political conservatism, put Francis on their cover.
Did they do it because they have become nearer to Catholicism? Nope. They did because Francis is rather similar to them, so they can’t avoid liking him.
The article explaining the choice has no qualms in telling us Francis has pleased the majority of Catholics, with which the pleasure of the majority officially becomes Rolling Stone’s metre of a Pope doing a good job. Congratulations. You are smart. Please throw away the joint.
The usual grounds are also mentioned: the “who am I to judge” stunt before all, the “stance” concerning homosexuality in particular, but also the populist drive with the “simplicity” of life; and again, that Francis keeps a simple background in order for him to shine the more in the foreground escapes the brilliant minds of “Rolling Stone”, of whom it can safely say that the dope hasn’t really improved their analytical faculties.
What does Francis do in all this? Is he not tired of being praised to the sky by obvious enemies of Catholic morals, whilst the criticism among Catholics becomes more and more vocal? Should he not react like everyone else would: giving a couple of very hard interviews, and making clear this nonsense of the “hippy Pope” has to stop? Please think this: just a couple of very obvious statements concerning very obvious Catholics truths (say: unless atheists repent before death they will go to hell; Muslims are infidels; Proddies are heretics; there is no salvation outside the Church; very, very basic stuff like that) would cure the planet very fast from any idea concerning the “hippy Pope”.
The problem is, he is a hippy Pope. Rolling Stone “gets” him far better than the Pollyannas of the Neocon fraction. Actually, it’s fair to say in the meantime the entire non-Catholic planet gets him, only the majority of Catholics still don’t. Notice that, in fact, the “Rolling Stone” journalist was given access to the Vatican so he could spin the man better.
Whenever something like that happens (Francis praised by fags; Francis praised by socialists; Francis praised by abortionists) ask yourself why they didn’t like Benedict, and they like Francis so much.
If they are so stupid that they can’t understand Francis’ message, why did they not do the same with Benedict? If Francis says the same Benedict always said, why have they now suddenly learnt to listen? And most of all: if they praise him, as they all do, for the wrong reasons, why does Francis refuse to set the record straight?
The answer is evident to everyone who is not entirely deluded and willfully blind: because Benedict was different in both style and content; because they are as able to listen now as they always were, and because Francis’ religion is his own popularity, with poverty and social justice a distant second and Catholic values and battles nowhere to be seen.
Francis wearing the Red Nose is more and more the perfect image of this pontificate. A pontificate that will hopefully be short and followed by someone who has read the Gospel in the last five decades, and has understood what it says.
Pray for Francis, that he may discover Catholicism. And pray for the Church, that she may be freed from him if he doesn’t.
Hilarious episode in St Peter’s square, where the two ohh doves, symbol of ohh peace, set free by the Bishop of Rome in one of those kindergarten stunts that are the most common mark of V II stupidity, have been immediately attacked by predatory birds in plain sight of the children present.
As Father Z informs us, several organisations have warned that the chances of survival of such “bringers of peace” aren’t better than those of the canary bird once freed from his cage by a solicitous, freedom-loving child. With the difference that Francis isn’t a child.
It is consoling to know that this time Francis has managed to teach the children something useful, and we should therefore charitably ignore the fact that this was most certainly not his intention. Still, there can be no doubt the children got a beautiful lesson, live and utterly cost-free, of what happens to pacifists the world over: they are free to flaunt their purity and whiteness as long as they are protected in a Vatican cage (or by an army), but are screwed very fast when their beautiful-sounding words are put into practice without third-party protection.
See, little ones? This is what happens to pacifists in real life. Let this be a lesson to you! He who lives by kindergarden rhetoric, dies by kindergarten rhetoric!
Thanks, Bishop Francis. This time you have been rather useful.
I always had a marked dislike for those who want to bend everything to their own ideology; particularly so, when the issue is religion. You all know the types: the revolutionaries telling you Jesus was a “revolutionary”, the pacifists maintaining he was a pacifist, or the environ-mentalists insisting that Jesus was one like them. They all take a message (actually, the Truth) and deform it so that it may serve their own purposes.
The Bishop of Rome, “who am I to judge”-Francis, is no exception; and he is no exception, inter alia, pertaining to one of the most sacred issued in Catholicism: the defence of the unborn.
As a Pope, Francis must say something on the matter every now and then. He tried to downplay or kill the issue: first keeping schtum for months, and then telling us we should not “obsess” with abortion, the loneliness of the elderly clearly being a far bigger problem. Still, he realised he would not be able to completely avoid the issue. What will he, then, do? He will do like the people mentioned above, and conveniently deform or downplay the issue to promote, at least in part, something else.
He did it one first time when he spoke of the unborn child as poor. Put that way, the impression is endangered the characteristics of the unborn child we should first notice is not that he is God’s creature, endowed with the right to live God has given him and no one can take away from him. No, what is presented to us first is that the unborn child is poor. In this way, the attention is deflected from the issue at hand (the legalised murder) and is conveniently directed towards, who would believe it, the true obsession of the Bishop of Rome: poverty.
The same has happened again some days ago: speaking of abortion, Francis had nothing harsher to say than it being another aspect of the throwaway culture, or if you want to be more ample in your criticism: consumerism. Curiously, this is another pet peeve of a man who is unable to obsess about abortion, but is perfectly able to touch ad nauseam all the usual issues of the West-hating liberal and socialist culture; which, in the end, is the culture of selfishness, smugness, envy, or plain death.
Last time I looked, to kill a baby in the womb was a tad worse than to buy a new car without the old needing replacement, or the larger LCD TV set when the old was doing its job just fine. Abortion involves an elementary issue of life and death, a brutal question of a human life being disposed of. Therefore, the issue of abortion lives in a sphere infinitely more important than every consumerism and every poverty. It is, in fact, difficult to imagine a more dramatic issue than this, even for people without a religious instruction or without any interest in getting one.
Francis knows all this. But he also knows that clear condemnation of abortion as what it is, the legal killing of an innocent unborn life to satisfy the selfish desire of her mother, would come across as “judgmental” and “reactionary”, thus costing him very dear in terms of what he wants most and really obsesses him: his own popularity and perception as icon of change. Therefore, he prefers to downplay the issue whilst blowing the horn of his own ideological bias.
Put in short: Francis talks about abortion as little as he can get away with. And when he does, he tries to let you think of something else, and to direct you towards his usual issues.
No man plagued with “excessive doctrinal securities”, this one.
I thought this is a parody of feminism. It isn’t.
Some interesting tenets of feminism are exposed here with a candor that allows us a deep – if deeply disgusting – look at the moral desert that is a modern feminist – nay: a feminist of all ages; the word itself should be banned from neutral conversation and land in the region of mocking words, like “dyke” and “faggot”-.
Some of the pearls of wisdom:
“Every time I hear someone say that feminism is about validating every choice a woman makes I have to fight back vomit.”
Curiously, I have the same reaction whenever I hear the word “feminism”. Whenever something is said that is in contrast with God’s command that the woman be first mother and nurturer, and the husband first protector and provider – for which respective role God has provided them in a clearly distinct way -, we are deep in feminist territory; though admittedly many do not smell the stench anymore, or they think there might be a “good feminism” and a “bad feminism”. And yes, a woman may obviously work if circumstances allow. Heck, Joan of Arc was a working girl, and men were ready to go to march to their death for her.
But God’s plan first.
“Do people really think that a stay at home mom is really on equal footing with a woman who works and takes care of herself? There’s no way those two things are the same”?
For whom should the doctors, then, care? Is a woman so good for caring for the health of children on whose mothers she looks down as “not taking care of themselves”? What is the good in caring for the product of other people’s vomiting-inducing behaviour?
“Oh, but life is important”. Well, then…
Besides: how does a mother not take care of herself? Because she follows God’s and Nature’s call and works in a partnership with her husband, where the dignity is the same, though the roles are different? And why exactly would a woman who does not want to do what is most obviously natural in a woman – giving birth – be on a superior footing? And if she does – so if she thinks it is important – why should this obviously very important role cause her not to be on an equal footing?
Boy, this dyke here must be an Anglo. Try this in Catholic countries and hear (most) people laugh at you.
“We have baby showers and wedding parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to get knocked up or find someone to walk down the aisle with”.
Being knocked up is not so difficult, and one thinks even the ugliest feminist – if she finds a man horny and drunk enough on the occasion – might accomplish this feat. Some men aren’t very discerning and, like dogs, if there’s no alternative they will eat the scraps. Still, what is astonishing is that even the fundamental basis of society, marriage, should be looked down upon. Not, mind, in favour of “free couples” who still care for raising children. This female here doesn’t want even that.
Boy, that must be an ugly one. She certainly doth protest too much.
“I want to have a shower for a woman when she backpacks on her own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job”
Eh? Ah? What?
Sound the Dyke Alarm. This is the complete negation of nature’s obvious design. It shows an utter inability to understand how God shaped the world, and why. It is denial of the very fabric of humankind.
On the contrary, I say that the woman who backpacks through Asia, gets the “promotion” (wow, are we spiritual) and lands the “dream job” (ditto) will deeply regret wasting her life with trifles when she realises this cost her the chance of a happy, fulfilling, God-given family life. Not many men would even consider a romantic relationship with such a drake. Women are supposed to be sweet, nurturing, forgiving, wonderfully giving beings. Not backpacking career freaks.
Unless, of course, the female in question is a feminist so rabid and so ugly she doesn’t have any chance at all, then no sane or insane man would ever tie his destiny with hers.Or else, obviously, a dyke. Then she can go backpacking, and good riddance. Afghanistan is beautiful, they say.
“I hear women talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear men talk about this.”
You don’t say? Astonishing! And I bet they do not talk about “women’s issues”, either!
Sports, cars, politics, and women. That’s it. Oh what a disgrace, a man! Why, oh why are they not like women!
Thanks, dear Lord, that in your Goodness you have given me a wonderful mother; the utter and complete opposite of this wretch here.
Fox News’ Adam Shaw has a brilliant article about Francisnomics, that strange mixture of kindergarten economics and plain socialist bollocks with which the man has been – or so he thinks – enriching the world these last ten months.
I invite you to follow the link and read the article, and reflect on the message this young but very promising man conveys. In doing so, I would suggest that you focus on the laudable mentality of the man, not on his age; on his willingness to take responsibility for himself rather than whine and wait for income redistribution; on the very fitting observation that it is easy to be a hotel suite socialist.
But then again if you want to insult the man simply because he is young, and the Pope is old, go on. It shows you are looking at the age, not the argument.
I am amazed at how there can be people around still insisting in saying: “what the Pope is continuously saying is not what he is really saying”. Heavens, the message is clear enough, and if one does not understand the Peronist drive of this man I doubt if he has ever understood anything in life, at all.
Obviously, being Francis, he will always say from a small corner of his mouth the contrary – or some small correction – of what he is shouting with the rest of it, but it is truly naive to think Francis does not have the end result in mind; that is: the way he very well knows the entire world will understand his – actually clear enough – slogans.
Can you imagine G.W. Bush announcing he will visit Pope Benedict to “explore inequalities”? Ever wondered why? When was last time Fox News published an article stating Benedict’s “disdain for those who are not content to soak in poverty or to submit to socialism”? A coincidence, do you think?
Francis is a disgrace when he wants to teach Catholicism, and is still an utter disaster – though certainly lees damaging to the faith – when he wants to talk about everything else. Kindergarten populism is his only inspiration, because his own popularity among the crowds of every religion and none – even Catholics, provided they are no fond of Tradition – is his first and last priority.
Perhaps at some level he persuaded himself that what advances his own popularity contributes to the creation of a better world, but this is certainly no excuse. In fact, you can say exactly the same of Hitler, or Pol Pot, or the Italian Red Brigades.
It is very good that a Pope who talks rubbish like almost no other Pope in the past (John XXII comes to mind; but the club is certainly very exclusive) is bashed in public like almost no other Pope of the past. People – and particularly Catholics – must wake up to the reality of a man whose incompetence in whatever he says is only surpassed by his vanity and arrogance in thinking the world needs to know whatever comes to his mind.
The Vatican has apparently announced he is now working on an encyclical about the environment.
Make the popcorn.
No doubt, Obama will be delighted.
I can’t help thinking of Abp Annibale Bugnini writing the Missal of Paul VI and composing the present Lectionary through a haze of whatever was smoked in 60s. Maybe I am being unfair and he didn’t smoke anything but the Pauline Lectionary has a decided 60s feel to it. The image of God, of Jesus is not organic, it has the feel of one particular period in history, to me it is decidedly Beatnik to early Hippie. If it hadn’t been compiled after two World Wars and the Holocaust it would probably have been quite different, if Bugnini or Paul VI had been different types of men the image of God presented to us would be quite different. Because fundamentally it is their image of God, it is not the image that St Thomas Becket, St Francis, St John of the Cross, St John Vianney…
View original post 568 more words
Effective Christian witness is not about bombarding people with religious messages, but about our willingness to be available to others “by patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence” (BENEDICT XVI, Message for the 47th World Communications Day, 2013). We need but recall the story of the disciples on the way to Emmaus. We have to be able to dialogue with the men and women of today, to understand their expectations, doubts and hopes, and to bring them the Gospel, Jesus Christ himself, God incarnate, who died and rose to free us from sin and death. We are challenged to be people of depth, attentive to what is happening around us and spiritually alert. To dialogue means to believe that the “other” has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective. Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute.
Below is the text from Mr. Werling’s Facebook page, with the explanation of why he has closed the blog.
It’s probably best to put the rumors to rest. No, the Jews aren’t to blame for my sudden departure from the internet, nor the Masons, liberals or the government.
The reason is, is that I had an epiphany, a sudden realization that all of this and more, including my personal construction of “traditional Catholicism”, had turned me into an incredibly ugly person. How many people have I insulted and made to feel like shit? Is that the faith? If that’s your faith, you can keep it; I’m done with it. It was all nothing more than a façade, a double life that even had me fooled, and it was all fed by my narcissism and delusions of grandeur. It was those closest to me who suffered the most, and it had to end.I’ve always believed myself to be a better person than I am… no, I’ve never been happy with who I am, and that’s a sad and pathetic thing. Before all this, I was an ex-seminarian who wrote fantasy stories and poetry, and I played Dungeons and Dragons, listened to rock music, and enjoyed long car rides with my wife, blaring that same rock music as loud as possible. I was happy then, but that was the kind of person I came to judge and condemn with the most severity once I became the internet asshole all of you know. So you know what? I quit the internet to write poetry and fantasy, and I’m going to find a D&D game too! If you think I’m going to hell, then say a prayer for me. If you snicker and judge me, then, oh well; not that long ago I was just like you, sad and pathetic.Of course, a good deal of loony bigots and conspiracy theory kooks will conclude that this has been penned by some Satan worshipping Jew-Freemason. For you reasonable folks, take that for what it is… creepy cultish and destructive behavior.So, if you want to believe in something, stop looking for it on the internet. True faith isn’t an internet opinion composed by an internet asshole. Lighten up. Listen to music. God won’t hate us if we stop being jerks. As my daughter told me recently, if it just causes you stress, then what is it? Shouldn’t it comfort you?In conclusion, a quote from one of my favorite movies, Apocalypse Now, which seems to sums up internet people quite well: “There are two of you, don’t you see? One that kills… and one that loves.”
As someone who has endorsed his blog (a blog of far higher quality than mine in many respects) I would like to say some words. I would like, so to speak, to write to Mr Werling what I would say to him if we were friends (I do not have the honour; and a honour it would be) and we were discussing his blog closure in front of a good pint of ale. If Mr Werling thinks that I not his friend and therefore not entitled to offer my humble opinion, so be it; take, then, these reflections as relating merely to my own blog, and and explanation of my motivation for blogging.
If, therefore, I were to sit with him in front of a friendly ale, I would say the following:
1. It is his blog. The sweat of his brow. If he wants to close it, destroy it, polverise it, and condemn it to the damnatio memoriae, so be it.
2. Not everyone is born for blogging. Not everyone reacts in the same way to the stress and controversy blogging causes. If one thinks that his blogging activity leads him further away from salvation, it makes sense that he should stop blogging. He is, without doubt, the best judge of that. I for myself can say to my readers that to run a blog does cause some stress, in my case particularly because it exposes me daily to a motherload of Modernist rubbish that at times I think I would be so happy to just ignore, and pray my rosary.
Having said that, and with all due respect, I also allow myself to make some slightly more critical considerations.
Ars Orandi was a pearl of Catholic wisdom and beauty. We may all be, as Mr Werling says, @ssholes, but then again the @ssholes are those in most need of beautiful words from, say, Dom Gueranger, and of beautiful and inspiring pictures and inspiration from liturgical texts. Once Mr Werling took the decision to stop blogging, perhaps it would have been advisable to keep the blog online. If then Mr Werling thinks his own blog posts are conducive to @ssholery, then it might have been advisable to cancel those only, leaving the beautiful devotional material and the beautiful pictures online. And let us reflect on this: one who visit his blog to read the liturgical and devotional pieces is, perhaps, not so irredeemable an @sshole after all.
I have always thought – and will always think – that ceteris paribus, between the old lady who looks so saintly in her utter desire to ignore everything evil going on around her, and the emotional fighter who gets angry and perhaps insulting, because he cares for more than his own peace of mind, the second is the one Jesus looks on with the more approving smile.
Unicuique suum, of course, and not everyone is made in the same way. Still, I do think that in the heat of the battle one has the right and at the same time cannot avoid to be, at times, overheated. It comes with the territory of being a human and a wretched sinner. What shall one do then, renounce to the fight because he is an unworthy fighter? Padre Pio got very angry at times. On occasion, he slapped people in the face. He has been known to shout in church. But he was padre Pio. I would suggest to Mr Werling that he cuts some slacks to the @ssholes, starting from himself if he really wants to put himself in that category (which, let it be clear, I don’t).
My impression is that this is a bad case of Anglo-Saxon mentality. If I criticise sinners, I have no right to be one. If I call for higher standards in prelates, I must have extremely high standards myself. If my life is full of the misery of sin, I should not tell other what I do not like, much less write a blog about it.
I wish Mr Werling were Italian. If he were, he would know our sinful nature is a given, and no one expects from us that we, say, do not listen to rock music because we write a blog. If Mr Werling had been Italian, he would have resumed long ago his rock music listening, and his car rides with his wife; and then perhaps – just perhaps – this would have given him the serenity and energy to continue his beautiful, beautiful work. At a slower pace, certainly. Probably with less stress. But continuing to give a great help to many, the writer of these words obviously included.
There is no either/or between being a blogger and a sinner. We are all sinners, and some of us are also bloggers. We aren’t special, we merely write better or have clearer ideas. At the same time, we have no obligation to be saintly – or else, hypocrites and @ssholes – simply because we can say what other feel, and those others resonate with what we write. It never ceases to amaze me how the Southerners live so serenely with their fallen nature, and the Anglos are always obsessing with the feeling if they criticise others they can only be Puritans or, well, @ssholes.
One day we will die. All our trespassesses will be all very clear to our mind. But I dare to think that our trespasses caused by our sincere love for Christ and his Church will, on that day, be looked upon with some leniency. Its’ easy to be beautiful when one refuses to fight the ugliness. If you fight against a shite cannon, there will be shite all over you. If one is interested in feeling the good guy, then I suggest one should be one of those oh so nice Anglicans whom no one would call @ssholes, but who will be judged on that fateful day, if Catholicism makes sense at all, with a different measure than the one who lost his temper because of his righteous anger.
I look at myself in the mirror, and I see one who never shunned a fight, but is not a specialist in being the kindle and gentle “more tea, vicar?”-Anglican chap. You know the type. Very serene people. No shite in sight. I wouldn’t be able to even have afternoon tea with one of those without starting to argue – pleasantly at times, unpleasantly at other times -. If this makes me an @sshole in Mr Werling’s eyes, so be it, and my esteem for him will be undiminished. But no, I prefer to die an @sshole in Mr Werling’s estimation (and countless others’, no doubt!) but be in the position to, one day, put my excesses and @ssholery to the feet of the Blessed Virgin and to say: “this, my Mother, is the horrible-looking crown of roses this wretched sinner could give you. I know it doesn’t look good. But it comes from my heart, and it is the best I found in myself the skill and virtue to do”.
And no one must read me in the first place, anyway; which applies to every other blogger, too. Therefore, if someone becomes a complete idiot because he reads me, it is his responsibility, not mine, to recognise that my blog does not make of him a better person, and does not help him on his way to salvation. No doctor ever ordered a patient to read “two blog posts of Mundabor’s (or Mr Werling’s) @assholery, daily, after the meals”.
Yes, discussions heat the spirit. Yes, you end up at times thinking things you shouldn’t, and losing your composure. Padre Pio shouted that the window panes trembled, and he one of the greatest saints. Those who never shout are, I would say, those who don’t care. Sinners, though, we all are. Mr Werling, myself much more of course, even Padre Pio who lost his countenance rather easily for the things he loved; and lost his temper greatly, because he loved greatly. Again, you never have to explain these things to an Italian; but alas, I write this blog in English.
My suggestion to Mr Werling, then, at the end of the above mentioned pint (or two), would be to keep the blog without his own posts, for the edification and help of those who take advantage from it; to, by all means, listen to all the rock music he likes, and spend wonderful hours with his wife and family without worrying about the blog; but to consider, perhaps, in a more tranquil hour, whether what he has done up to now was really so bad, and so worthy of destruction; and whether he would not find in his heart, perhaps at some point in future, to put the archive online for the benefit of us @ssholes and, perhaps, one day, start blogging again.
I have received a message from a reader; she laudably realises her Catholicism has been polluted by V II rubbish, and asks me for suggestions to create a good and sound Catholic foundation.
I would personally tackle the matter in two phases: the foundation itself and those texts particularly devoted to the distortions and trouble of the V II theology reaching its implosion in these decades under our very eyes. This would give a very solid knowledge of where we are as opposed to where we should be. Of course, from there the journey can go pretty much everywhere, as by God’s grace we now have an immensely vast choice of traditional books on the Internet.
Firstly, though, a recommendation:the one to buy good Catholic apps if one has a smartphone or a tablet. I go as far as to say that the Catholic apps available are, in fact, reason enough to buy one of those devices if one hasn’t done so already. Similarly, the purchase of a tablet and the download of a Kindle app will allow one to save the money for the Kindle device if one does not read for many hours on end.
For the first phase, I suggest the following:
1. Throw away your JP II catechism. No, I really mean throw it away. Whilst generally orthodox, it has questionable phrasing and suggestive, covertly accommodating theology on several issues (see baptism and salvation). The Abbé de Nantes found it heretical in twelve points.
Let me repeat it: throw it away. You can thank me later. For the sake of clarity, the compendium appeared in 2005 (Ratzinger’s) is fine, and the Abbé de Nantes himself recognised none of the twelve heretical points of the “Schoenborn” catechism were therein contained.
2. Catholic apps (like Ipieta, a must!) or electronic books or, in case, print allow one to easily access the following:
A. Penny Catechism.
This is the ideal text to start from scratch in redoing one’s thinking. You can buy it on the Internet for a pittance, probably on apps too. He who masters the Penny Catechism is way in front of 90% of V II priests, and can already teach Francis the basics. Already the Penny Catechism shames our inglorious Bishop of Rome page by page. You compare it and Francis’ uninterrupted, obscene waffle and understand they are on two different planets already.
B. Baltimore Catechisms
There are three of them in growing order of difficulty, plus a fourth which is the third with commentary. The first three are on Ipieta, which also has a number of other old catechisms and even the Compendium. The purchase of Ipieta is, again, invaluable. A wealth of Catholic wisdom of all sorts always with you! Don’t delay, buy today! I doubt I will read in a lifetime the hundreds of text therein contained. Seriously, Ipieta is not a weapon, but an entire arsenal of Catholicism.
If one has already digested the Penny Catechism, I suggest to go directly to Baltimore III. There is no real need for a commentary (which a I found very good, though) as the Baltimore Catechisms are of exemplary clarity but still accessible for everyone.
When one has these two well assimilated, he is already equipped to properly interpret every antic of Francis and see the magnitude of this man’s – and of many V II priests’ – confusion.
C. Other catechisms.
Again, IPieta has a nice choice. The catechism of St. Pius the X is wonderful but as far as I know there are no official English translations. I found the Italian text online, and it’s as good as you expect. But in general I would say there’s no need to have many catechisms: pick a sound one, and absorb its content well.
At this point, I would proceed with some texts aiming at a specific comparison between “old” and “new”: the 2000 years of tradition and the 50 years (and counting) of drunken madness.
I mention here only some fundamental works, which will be reading enough:
1. Iota unum
The printed edition is expensive but I found it well worth the expense. SSPX Asia have a free electronic version on their site. You may check if it is available as electronic book. My copy is invaluable, and to me one of those “desert island books”.
2. “The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church””
This is not a catechism, but a SSPX publication, available on kindle. In general, absolutely everything one can read from the SSPX is wonderful and above suspicion, albeit I do allow myself – like many others among their supporters – to attend the V II mass. There were long discussions about this, so please refrain from starting a new one. Back to the matter at hand, this book is an excellent comparison between timeless truth and convenient accommodation or outright lie. Obligatory reading, if you ask me, for the aspiring Traditionalist.
3. One Hundred Years of Modernism
This is another SSPX book, also available on Kindle. It explains – giving a sound philosophical introduction – how the cancer of Modernism found its way in the organism of the Church. Not easy subject matter – it will help a lot if you have studied philosophy at school or university – but explained with exemplary clarity. If you are not trained in philosophy, this will require some work, but the reward will be rich.
4. Life of Christ
This is in my eyes the most glorious of Fulton Sheen’s books. A joy to read and re-read. Archbishop Sheen packs his book with so many sound and easy to understand explanations of Catholic teaching that this book can be considered a kind of subsidiary catechism in itself. I have the paper version, I think it is also on Kindle now. This book is also a formidable weapon to address the remarks of sceptics and infidels.
5. “Life Everlasting” & any Garrigou-Lagrange Book.
Well, any of them at a more advanced level. I have read four: “Reality”, “Predestination”, “Providence” and “Life Everlasting”.
The first three are more complicated, and the first two of them require either a philosophical foundation or the willingness to plow through it page by page. The fourth is a very good integration to a Catechism in matters of salvation and damnation, and it is written in a much more accessible way than the other three books.
The list could go on, but I think the sources mentioned provide already a more than solid ground, and if properly absorbed would put one well in the front row of the Army of Christ, at least as far as weaponry is concerned.
Two things to conclude:
1. Buy Ipieta.
2. Always pay attention to catechesis texts, even if before Vatican II. I once bought on Kindle a book from a chap called Karl Adam without knowing who he was, merely browsing Kindle for pre-V II theologians. Utter rubbish, I tell you. Again, I could immediately see it was rubbish because once you have the fundamentals down well, you will be able to smell the smoke from pretty far away.
So, that was that then, and again for a first plunge in sound Catholicism it is more than enough. It must be clear that infinite other choices are thinkable, this is just one possible path among very many.
The most beautiful effect of being grounded solidly in Truth (wretched sinners as we all are, of course) is that no antics of this or that stupid bishop, drunken Cardinal or diva Pope will ever confuse you again.
I have stated in the past, and repeat here, that Truth is as hard, and as beautiful, as a diamond. Once you have mastered the use of the diamond (and you need not be an expert theologian for that; nowadays most of them seem to lose their faith anyway; just be prayerful and sincerely desirous to know the a Truth and submit to it, and to live it as well as you can) you will be able to cut through every Modernist or Zeno-Modernist rubbish in no time.
And buy IPieta.
The White House has recently announced on 27 March Obama will meet the Bishop of Rome to “explore inequalities”. Already this statement allows you to know beforehand what is going to happen: a rhetorical contrapunct in which the two melodies (the secular populism and baby-killing rage of Obama, and the secular populism with a thin varnish of Catholicism and “who am I to judge” rage of the Bishop) will intertwine to create a complex Socialist sound meant to please the envious, the losers, the lazy, the illegals and the reprobates of all kind the world over.
There is, of course, the small difficulty that Obama is exactly the contrary of what a Catholic should stand for; but if you reflect that Francis is almost exactly the contrary of what a Pope should be you realise this small difficulty will be easily overcome. In the “run with the hare and hunt with the hound” style that has become a mark of his inglorious pontificate, Francis will let the world know he has decided to “focus” on some “burning” issues he “shares” with the President, whilst the real issues – the one of the most inhumane, Nazi abortionist anti-Catholic pro-faggotry bastard even to darken the doors of the White House to mention only one – will be conveniently toned down to the point of inaudibility.
Perhaps we will be informed – at some point, when the hype is gone – that Francis has expressed some “concern” about the HHS mandate; we might be told that Francis has “mentioned” abortion with Obama; we could be reminded that the Pope is – or so he says – Catholic. But make no mistake: none of this will introduce any cacophony to the sugary sounding contrapunct mentioned above.
This feast of global rhetoric is what will make the real headlines, helping both men to become more popular among their common chosen audience – those who don't give a Barack for God in general, and Catholicism in particular -. At the same time, the little and softly whispered sounds of obligatory disagreement between the two will be generously fed to the Catholic press and blogdom, with the inevitable wave of Pollyanna-style articles and blog post along the lines of “Is Pope Francis Just Another Socialist Nutcase? Eleven Things To Know And Share”. The army of Pollyannas among the readers, ready to believe everything that helps them to continue their cosy, comfortable dream of the orthodox Papacy, will as always swallow it whole, and will as always come back asking for more.
A bit more difficulties might, though, those bloggers and journalist encounter who have made of systematic – and very laudable – attacks to Obama a mainstay of their publishing activity. They will have to make an extra effort to persuade their audience that the North-American Marx and the South-American Che Guevara are really that different. Kind of embarrassing,
You might then say that this is, in the end, nothing very new: Popes have met US Presidents before, and Pope Benedict has also met the very same Barry Boy in the past. The reasons of diplomacy, and all that. I reply to this that this meeting promises to be nothing of the sort, and the respectful but very clear mention of the differences will make place for a huge “equality fest”, by which differences will be brutally downplayed and the two men will help each other in establishing their own position as the popular icons of the first half of this century.
I might be wrong, of course, and suddenly Francis might discover a strong antagonism to abortion, the undermining of Christian values, and the forced redistribution attitude. Forgive me for being skeptical about that, having noticed that Francis talks about abortion the strict indispensable and as much in a whisper as he can, has done nothing – besides making stupid and offensive jokes – about the homo infiltrations in the Vatican, is a public protector of sodomites in his own entourage, is a great buddy of the one who wants to persecute Catholics for their faith, and loves playing Che.
I can already imagine the photos of the two, and the huge mediatic circus the press will make of the “hope and change” President and the “who am I to judge” Pope.
“United Against Poverty And Homophobia”.
I can already imagine it, and it truly makes me sick.
It says here Cardinal Maradiaga will participate to an event that will take place in Honduras and seems to be, for what I understand, a kind of US pendant to a “mother” pilgrimage in Medjugorje. Last year the “seer” Dragicevic was also there, but this here he is busy making money elsewhere, so no seer for the unfaithful.
We will have to wait whether this really happens before commenting. At least I will do so.
But the very fact that the news does not seem absurd tells a lot about Maradiaga and the direction of the V II Church.
After the (second) former Swiss Guard to talk in just a week, Archbishop Becciu has encouraged him to speak openly with Vatican personnel and make the names.
Francis is interested in knowing the truth, he says.
Give me a break. There is a 300 page reports at his disposal. I assume Francis can read?
But of course the good archbishop does not believe himself in what he says. If you ask him, it’s all slander. We live in “such a beautiful and important spiritual time”, he blathers.
And the man truly contradicts himself: he accuses Maeder saying that it is “too easy” to talk without making names, but is fully aware himself of the legal implications of making names in newspaper articles.
It’s a Saddam moment: if you are an opposer you either come to the open (when you will be shot at) or you are a coward or a slanderer.
This is the kind of prelate we have now. He clearly isn’t concerned about the homos in the Vatican at all. It’s “such a beautiful and important spiritual time”
In his latest, boorish provocation to Still-Archbishop Müller, Cardinal Maradiaga has made some statements to the tune that Cardinal Müller must take account of reality.
If you ask me, the Cardinal has piddled out of the urinal for at least two reasons. Let us see them.
Firstly, the idea that Church teaching is in utter contrast to the tendencies and inclinations of us wretched sinners is nothing new. It is, actually, the reason Christ founded the Church in the first place. The Cardinal must be a very uneducated man if he does not know that “reality” was always well populated with, say, concubines, illegitimate children, and moral trespasses of all sorts. The Church is called to operate in the world exactly because the reality of the world is one of sin. To claim that Church teaching and praxis must be adjusted to reality is to embrace the purest Religion of Man, and to deny the role of the Church in the first place.
I can vividly imagine Maradiaga listening to Christ and saying to him: “Loosen up, Bro. Look at the world around you!”
Secondly, from a different point of view it seems to me that Maradiaga is unaware or willingly forgetful of the fact that God and His Truth are the ultimate reality. What I mean by that is that in my book God's laws have a far more granitic quality, are infinitely more real than any ephemeral earthly weakness. God's rules existed before the first concubine was born, and will exist forever after the last one has died. Therefore, Truth is real, is the authentic “reality” of things in a way compared to which every earthly “reality” is but a transient phenomenon. By demanding that the “reality” he can observe around him shape the Ultimate Reality that is supposed to shape it, Maradiaga shows his utter neglect of that ultimate and superior reality he will have to face one day.
I can imagine that one day the following conversation will take place:
“But, but… Lord, why it's so warm here?”
“Loosen up, “Bro”. It's just the reality of which you were so fond”.
One is at a loss to say whether Cardinal Maradiage is more arrogant, or Bishop Francis more incompetent. What seems clear to me is that both are masters of their respective discipline; this,very charitably assuming Francis does not actually want these public controversies. The Cardinal allows himself a level of familiarity and public defiance that can only be called boorish, and no doubt he does so because he feels his new appointment to “Turbo Cardinal” lets him think he can play the MiniMe of the Bishop of Rome unpunished.
Francis, though, created or encouraged every bit of this very public mess. In June last year he said to the progressive nuns dressed in everyday clothes they shouldn't be worried about what the CDF writes to them, thus clearly and publicly undermining the authority of both the office (the CDF) and the person (++ Müller). In Brazil, he invited the faithful to “make a mess” like a teenager overcome by revolutionary hormones. Moreover, with his appointment of the “Gang of Eight” he has created a power central – again, a very public one – whose members now feel entitled to exploit their position of prominence even in matters not pertaining to the specific reason of their appointment: administrative reform.
Francis is the one who has fathered this mess also in other, very grave ways. His continued attacks (as in: attacks) to Catholic orthodoxy encourage the worst among his followers to do the same, and to do so in the certainty not only of impunity but of overt or covert approval. Furthermore, Francis' obsession with public utterances and his tragic inability to keep his mouth shut – which he would do if he had some fear of The Lord – encourages others to do the same. As a result, disagreements among Cardinals are now – if the one who disagree is a chap like Maradiaga – carried on very publicly, in a very aggressive way, taking liberties not even politicians would allow themselves to take. In the reign of Francis, now degenerated to a shameless quest for popularity, it is not surprising that internal disagreements have become popularity wars.
“Loosen up, Bro” is the public and explicit message Maradiaga sends to Müller.
What an arrogant boor. And what a fitting man for this Papacy.