Daily Archives: January 14, 2014
The French President, Francois Hollande, has a brand-new mistress. I mean, she is not so very brand-new as she is 41, but you get my drift.
Hollande must now, as they say, “decide” between his mistress and his wife; then apparently French Presidents cannot have both anymore, as they usually did in the past. Will he keep his 48 years old wife, who has already expressed her desire to keep her five servants, jet flights, and assorted perks of the lawful spouse of the elected Roi Soleil? Or will he go for the 41 years old mother of two, promoting her from her role of Madame Pompadour to the far more prestigious one of (future) Current Wife?
Ah, I forgot. Hollande's actual wife (I mean, as I write) has four children; but they aren't Hollande's; none of them; at least not as far as we know. Hollande himself has, though, his own children; but they also come from another wife; or another relationship; or whatever.
We live in a world of middle-aged promiscuous teenagers changing their official “partner” like others change cars; leaving a trail of broken families and wounded children behind them; not even feeling any need to apologise for their behaviour; without any idea of what it is I do not say chastity, but at least taking one's responsibilities and living like a responsible adult.
One begins to understand why so many of these people support and glorify sodomy. If you want to be able to do as you please without fear of criticism, you must allow your voters – straight or pervert – to do the same. ” Who am I to judge” is exactly the kind of comment the Hollandes of the world want you to make when you hear of their antics, and in order to do so every moral frame that would allow the moral judgment of the President and of those like them must be destroyed in the first place.
Middle-aged teenagers voted by middle-aged teenagers; none of whom apparently sees the least problem in that.
Welcome to XXI Century's Western Europe.
The Bishop of Rome finds it, as we are informed, “frightful” to think aborted children will “never see the light of day”.
I do not know you, but to me this says once again how worldly, how simply forgetful of heaven – if he believes in it, which isn't sure – the man is.
Where I come from, we were always under the impression, which was (cough) somewhat reinforced by 2000 years of Christian belief and constant teaching, that aborted children are – as a rule – deprived of the Beatific Vision.
Francis doesn't seem to care much for the Beatific Vision. To him, the “light of day” is clearly more important. “What a beautiful morning!”, he must say to himself on waking up to another beautiful Roman day, “to think that aborted children miss it! Frightful! I'll have to mention this in an homily one of these days…”.
Honestly, one like that doesn't even need to believe in God. A pro-life atheist will certainly deplore the loss of life experiences and various beauties connected with the abortion in exactly the same way.
Unless you think, as you well might, that in Francis' strange religion of course aborted children enjoy the Beatific Vision. If Francis thinks so, this has any or all of the following consequences:
1. Paradise is a very boring place, and the Beatific Vision not worth much. Hey, the poor souls could have enjoyed an earthly existence, and many glorious mornings to boot. And now that..
2. In Paradise the enjoyment of earthly condition is desired, but not possible.
Child: “Dear God, may I see the light of day?”
God: “How often do I have to tell you this? No, no, no! You have been aborted! You can't have any light of day!”
3. The mother who aborted the child actually gave him the most precious gift, security of the Beatific Vision without the risk of going to Hell, and all this at the extremely convenient, infinitely small price of few decades of fleeting pleasures, which would have been mixed with a lot of suffering anyway and, let us say it once again, the risk of eternal damnation. Seriously, there is no better deal this side of Heaven.
Actually, in this case it is the mothers who do not abort their children who are the cruel ones, because they expose their children to a concrete risk of damnation – an infinite punishment – and endanger for their child the possibility of the Beatific Vision – an infinitely worthy good – against the infinitely small satisfaction that can be derived by dubious and temporary wordly pleasure, limited both in kind and duration of enjoyment.
Unless – and here things become really strange – Francis should believe that, through Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross, absolutely each and everyone is saved: born and unborn, baptised and unbaptised, slapped on the wrist or not slapped on the wrist. In this case there is no need for priests or friars, or for missionaries, or for the Vatican, or for the Church Christ founded, or for the Pope who should run her; unless it be, perhaps, to avoid the slap on the wrist, or enjoy the light of day, or help the delicate Francis not to have frightful thoughts whilst he subects the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate – those horrible people who keep believing in Hell and terrorising the faithful – to a… frightful persecution.
Once again, Francis says things that sound well, and don't make sense. They don't, because his entire new religion just does not stand the exam of reason; besides being in obvious contradiction with Catholicism, that is.
Pray for the Pope. Pray more, the more he says such things. If you don't really feel like doing it for him, at least do it for the Church that he should protect, for the truths he should transmit intact, and for the countless souls damaged by his shallow, emotional, wordly, self-centred, un-Catholic thinking.
The Salvation Reblog
The first time, I thought I hadn’t heard correctly. I’m a Foreigner, you know, and all that.
The priest ( a Novus Ordo priest; worse still, a Franciscan) went on blabbering as to how we have already been saved and the only think we have to do is to rejoice in the Lord, and that kind of stuff. “Sit back and relax, it’s all good”-wannabe theology for the gullible.
I knew this was a Franciscan and therefore I’d have to make allowances for the underlying heresy of their thinking, but I thought in some way some part of the homily which (perhaps; in a way; so to speak) maintains what Catholicism has always held might not have been understood correctly by me. The prevalently sixty-eighter audience (you know the type) seemed rather pleased with both the priest and themselves.
Then there was the Jesuit from that beautiful church located in…
View original post 768 more words