Daily Archives: January 31, 2014
Is The Pope a Jesuit?
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.
Reflections On The Modern Times
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.
What Would Audi Do? The Nazis Among Us.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.