Monthly Archives: February 2014
‘From the beginning and before all ages God selected and prepared for His only Son the Mother from whom, having taken flesh, He would be born in the blessed fullness of time; He loved her by herself more than all creatures, and with such a love as to find His delight in a singular way in her. That is why, drawing from the treasures of His divinity, He endowed her, more than all the angels and saints, with such an abundance of heavenly gifts that she was always completely free from sin, and that, all beautiful and perfect, she appeared in such a plenitude of innocence and holiness that, except God’s, no greater than hers can be conceived, and that no mind but the mind of God can measure it.’
Pope Pius IX, Bull Ineffabilis Deus, December 1854.
“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’”
Pope Francis, Daily Morning Blabbering, December 2013
If you have followed the recent events in Uganda, you will have noticed a strong contrast between the useless waffle of much of the West and the robust Christianity in Africa.
Here in the satiated – actually, obese – West, “who am I to judge?” is the order of the day, and the entire Church apparatus bends over backward to be as much aligned to secular values as they can get away with. As the Bishop of Rome is the one who can get away with pretty much everything, it is no surprise he is very much at the head of the movement.
Meanwhile, in regions of more recent Christianisation – like Sub-Saharan Africa, where Christianisation has been largely absent, albeit with some notable exceptions – Christianity is taken far more seriously, and the local prelates fulfill their role of shepherd in a way most Western ones would never think of, or dream about. This is why the Ugandan clergy – can you believe it – supports the Ugandan law against sodomy and homosexual propaganda.
Mind, though, that they do not shout “God hates fags”. God hates faggotry, and He hates the fact that one person is a fag. But he certainly loves him as an immortal soul. Still, the love for the person does not mean the condoning of the abomination; something African clergy would not do more than they would child abuse, or incest. Note that, in doing this, they are not only very sound, but also very charitable.
All this escapes our very corrupt – from the Bishop of Rome down – hierarchy, most of whose adherents would very probably describe sodomy laws and the punishment of homosexual propaganda as “homophobic”; either because they are blissfully unaware this is what Christian countries – being Christian – have always done, or because they find it more convenient to ignore the facts than to confront the world.
This creates, on reading of the news coming from Uganda, the clear impression that the Church is split in two: an ailing body, sullied with all the filth of the world in the Western world broadly intended – that is: including Central and South America – and a far younger, healthier, clearly pugnacious one in parts of Asia and vast parts of Africa, where “who am I to judge?” is rightly ignored in favour of the sensible, Christian, and charitable “why should I be an accomplice?”.
And in fact, when the Ugandan bishops approve the law – whose explicit aim is to avoid the corrupting influence of the satanic Western mentality – they are not only stating their refusal of the Western secular society; they are, and emphatically so, also rejecting the bogus Christianity preached everywhere from Western Catholic prelates and priests, from the Pope down, who would obliterate the Christian message and substitute it for a vague, fluffy, effeminate emotionalism in which only God's mercy has remained.
Being Christian, they are not worried in the least of being called “homophobic”. In fact, the very use of the word “homophobia” is a very worrying sign the person who uses it might have strayed already so far from Catholicism and Christianity at large, that his ability to promote sound Catholicism is now severely impaired.
Let us take an example from the brave Ugandan government, and the sound Ugandan Catholic clergy.
We do not need measures against “homophobia”.
We need to bring back Sodomy laws.
SECOND UPDATE! IMPORTANT!!
La vera riconciliazione è che Dio, in Cristo, ha preso i nostri peccati e Lui si è fatto peccato per noi. E quando noi andiamo a confessarci, per esempio, non è che diciamo il peccato e Dio ci perdona. No, non è quello! Noi troviamo Gesù Cristo e gli diciamo: ‘Questo è tuo e io ti faccio peccato un’altra volta’. E a Lui piace quello, perché è stata la sua missione: farsi peccato per noi, per liberare a noi”.
This is the Italian.
It is much different from the English translation. Whoever made the translation should convert to Catholicism, or ask someone before translating.
“La vera riconciliazione è che Dio, in Cristo, ha preso i nostri peccati e Lui si è fatto peccato per noi.”
“The true reconciliation is that God, in Christ, took on our sins and He made Himself sin for us.”
This is worlds apart from “became the sinner”. It simply means that Christ took our sins. This is a common expression. There is nothing scandalous in that. Whilst “became the sinner” sounds (and is) blasphemous and would sound in Italian just as atrocious as in English, the expression clearly used by Francis is common fare in Italian. The expression is repeated at the end of the period, and the same considerations apply.
On this: cessato allarme, “alarm ceased”. The translator should get twenty lashes, though.
Pretty much the same happens for the second scandalous part, the one about the confession:
“Noi troviamo Gesù Cristo e gli diciamo: ‘Questo è tuo e io ti faccio peccato un’altra volta’ “.
This is not a very brilliant Italian. It is a somewhat uncertain Italian, perhaps with dialectal nuances, but one understands the meaning. What he means to say is this:
1. “We find Jesus Christ (in confession) and say to him: “This is yours, I have sinned against you once again” “. Again, this is a world apart from saying “this is your sin, and I will sin again”. The first expression does indicate contrition, and the ashamed consciousness of having offended Christ. The second indicates total absence of contrition, and the shamelessly announced intention to offend Him again.
2. Alternatively, he might link to the expression used before, and say “through my sin I cause You to make Yourself sin for us again“.
It is difficult to say which is which, because in normal parlance no one become a thing (a sin), the expression being used only when speaking of Christ. I tend for the first because it seems to me to point out to contrition, the natural attitude in the confessional. The second, though, links directly to the theme of Jesus taking on Himself the burden of our sins.
Once again, the “ti” is slightly misleading, but in the context the orthodox meaning is clear to a mother tongue whatever the exact meaning of the phrase. I would have said “faccio peccato contro di te (un’altra volta)” (first version) or “ti faccio diventare peccato per noi (un’altra volta)” (second version) instead of “ti faccio peccato (un’altra volta)”. Bergoglio’s use sounds like a dialectal expression to me, or a colloquial regional way, or a slight imprecision. Francis is probably misled by similar usages of the Italian language (“ti faccio male”, “I (will) hurt you”; “ti faccio vedere”, colloquial for “you’ll see”; “ti faccio arrossire”, “I make you blush”, and the like). Perhaps Spanish has similar ways he “imported” in Italian.
No, there is no scandal here. There are a lot of scandals with this Pope. This Pope is a walking and talking scandal. But I cannot see any scandal here in what Francis has said.
Obviously, if we reflect this is the translation of the Vatican site, and apparently the German has the same blunders, we understand how the scandal was born. But no, you can go to sleep (I will do it presently) safe in the knowledge that a mother tongue Italian blogger, who took great scandal at the English version, finds the original a tad “uncommon” or “unclean” in the expression (not the “President’s Italian”, so to speak), but certainly understandable in a way that does not create scandal.
Semel in anno, we can say this is not his fault.
The most atrocious translation I have ever read, though. Particularly because it gave the speech a sort of inner, satanic coherence with the heretical or blasphemous double whammy. It goes to show once again the dangers of these off-the-cuff statements which, even when they are not utter bollocks out of Francis’ mouth, can become it out of hurried translations perhaps from people who do not really know what Confession is. One who goes to confession thinks thrice before writing a translation like that, but again in today’s Radio Vaticana the translator might belong to any religion, or none.
I will, therefore, now proceed to cancel my entire post, and all our comments.
I would say “rejoice”, but there is nothing to rejoice.
Francis remains as bad as he already was. He has always mixed orthodox statements with heterodox or heretical ones. It’s not that he has now magically transformed himself in an orthodox Pope. This statement was was orthodox in the original and became heretical in the translation, is all.
Pat Archbold has written a blog post, then removed from the NCR website, about Francis and the SSPX.
I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX. I have also come to believe that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity. So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door. Further, Pope Francis’ commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.
In fact, it beggars belief that a man who does not hesitate in calling a Proddie wannabe bishop “brother bishop” in a frenzy of heretical, possibly tipsy, grappa-fueled generosity would not run to extend to the SSPX a tiny and perfectly orthodox fraction of the same compassion by simply understanding how infinitely nearer the SSPX are to any Catholic than the deluded heretics he tirelessly cajoles. Yes, of course such a “compassion loving” Bishop of Rome should extend his compassion to perfectly orthodox Catholics first. It should really go without saying.
Alas, the brutal truth is that Francis only has one enemy, and they are orthodox Catholics. These are the only ones who get mocked and insulted in every possible and impossible way. Everyone else, from atheists to Proddies to subversive nuns, get away with pretty much everything, and he will actually berate rosary-counting Traditionalists in the very presence of those nuns he encourages not to pay too much attention to what the CDF says to them.
Now, it remains to wonder why the NCR has removed the blog post.
If you ask me, it is because with his invitation to extend to the right crowd the generosity he lavishly extends to the wrong one, Mr Archbold unwittingly highlights the hypocrisy and the heretical madness of this pontificate. He does not say so of course, and I am rather sure he does not even want to say so. But this is the logical consequence of a continued inaction toward real orthodox Catholics, even as Francis abandons himself to every kind of heretical talk and senseless waffle every time an Iphone is in the vicinity.
The dismal state of Catholicism in this XXI can be perfectly seen from the fact that we have a tango-loving clown as Pope, and 90% to 95% of Catholics either cheer him, or have no problem at all with his antics, or do not dare to think he might be wrong because they are afraid of what the consequences of that would be for their very badly formed Catholicism.
We are being punished. Deservedly so, of course.
Very strange contribution some days ago on Rorate Caeli, with Archbishop Gullickson writing about the controversy and saying that he is a friend of the SSPX, but clearly implying they are in his opinion behaving in a rather stubborn way, refusing to consider that not everything can be perfect in life and that one should be able to accept the one or other little inconvenience and injustice for the sake of a greater good.
Archbishop Gullickson is, from what I can read around, a good Archbishop and a friend of true Catholicism; but frankly, one cannot but be unpleasantly surprised at the mentality his message betrays. The idea – coming from one who described himself as their friend – that the Society would now be doing, in the end, not much less than throwing toys out of the pram for a laudable, but misguided desire of…
View original post 421 more words
Excellent post from this blog page (I hope the link works) with a comparison between Barron’s senseless talk and some sound Catholics like Pope Pius XII and St. Paul.
I invite you to visit the site (the Barron video is posted again), but just in case the blog author were to “pull a Werling” at some point in future it is wise to copy and paste the texts. Emphases of the author.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
Romans 5:12-19 (RSV) Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned —  sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.  And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.  If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:45-49 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.  But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.  The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.  As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.  Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
the view of a non-literal, non-historical Adam is also contrary to the understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the second Eve: a motif very common in the Church fathers and in Catholic Mariology ever since their time. If there wasn’t a literal Eve who said “no” to God, then by analogy there would be no literal Mary who said “yes” and made redemption possible, in terms of being the Mother of (the incarnate) God (the Son).
Therefore, just as the Pauline analogy of Adam and second Adam (Christ) requires a literal understanding, so does the Eve-Mary analogy. Just as there was a literal Adam who really fell (and the human race with him (Rom 5:15; 1 Cor 15:22), thus requiring the redemption of Christ, so there was a real historical Eve who said “no” to God, and hence by analogy, a real Mary who said yes and led the way to redemption by being the Mother of (the incarnate) God.
There is more on the site, which again I invite you to visit. I will do so as time allows.
I allow myself for now merely to remark that what goes against 2,000 years of Christian thinking must be, after a two-seconds reflection, forcibly wrong even if it seems to appease the fashion of the time. Once again, it is proven a peasant with a pure heart and respect for what is taught to him has a better sensus catholicus than these vainglorious bringers of novelty and confusion, who remind me rather of Monthy Python’s crazy prophets.
I for myself will continue to pray the Blessed Virgin: “To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve”. No, I mean in the literal sense. Really.
Please, Lord: if these people are intelligent, let me die stupid.
Listening to the video of Father Barron about the Adam that “stands for arts, for science, for politics, for conversation, for friendship” and all that crap rather than being, well, Adam as the Bible says and we stupid Christians have believed all this time, another senseless comparison should get our attention: the non-violent God.
Barron, like Francis, is so bent on making God palatable to modern sensitivities, that he forgets God in the process. Therefore, he must concoct a “non-violent” God who, in Gandhi-like fashion, creates the world without those horrible bloody conflicts present in other mythologies.
As he speaks, Barron is so pleased with himself – you see it all the time in that kind of half smirk he always carries on his face; as if he were amusedly surprised that humanity had to wait for him to properly understand things – that he neglects to mention the many episodes in which God is all but non-violent. You should just ask the Sodomites for some info. You would be surprised. Hhmmm… not much Gandhi there.
Barron is the perfect priest of the Francis’ era.
A smiling rapist of Truth, for the sake of an applause.
And it came to pass Father Barton told us Adam is a literary figure. Google it please, I have no time for the video link right now.
Let us think this to the end.
If Adam is a literary figure, then we cannot have inherited Original Sin from him. There can, in fact, be no Original Sin whatsoever, then there would be no single origin for it. But Originsl Sin is the reason why Christ died on the cross: to redeem us from it.
If, therefore, Adam is a literary figure, then everything can become a literary device. Did Jesus really die on the Cross to free us from… well, what exactly?
I suspect one could go on forever with this train of thought, and carpet bomb Christianity until only Father Barron and Bishop Francis thinks it's still the religion of our forefathers.
I am eagerly awaiting for Barton to offer retract action and apology.
By the way, his arrogant and rebellious statements are beautiful evidence that he is, most certainly, a descendant of Adam and Eve.
But then again, this is one who thinks hell might be empty…
The Pontiff Emeritus has officially reacted to Andrea Tornielli's recent questions about the supposed background of his resignation, and has invited to stop absurd speculations.
If you ask me, he was very right in saying a word or three, because such speculations damage the institutions of the Papacy, and we should not damage the Papacy merely because we have an atrocious Pope.
It goes without saying that the conspiracy ultras will not be satisfied with this. If one thinks the Pope was horribly blackmailed into resigning, he will believe his latest statements have the same cause as the resignation. This is the beauty, so to speak, of all conspiracy theories, whose followers are by definition able to persuade themselves of absolutely everything they wish without reality having to provide any concrete evidence of what they believe. It's all secret, you know.
Still, I rather hope reasonable and sensible people will now definitely stop every conjecture on the matter. Not to do so means to insult Benedict to the point of considering him not only cowardly enough to give in to blackmail, but outright servile in that he keeps marching towards his grave with such a weight on his conscience.
The Church does not believe in lesser evils. If a Pope is threatened with a huge scandal unless he resigns, he has the duty not to resign whatever evil may come out of the scandal. This, assuming that the unearthing of a scandal is the evil, rather than the scandalous facts themselves. A Pope can simply not accept to be strong-armed into resigning his office. Popes haven't resigned faced with Napoleon and the possible devastation of Catholicism all over Napoleonic Europe. Just imagine if a Pope should resign to avoid some sex or abuse or financial scandal.
Please let us stop this, and let us be real.
Benedict freely decided to resign. Whether we like it or not.
Sandro Magister is a veteran journalist. He does not express himself with the virulence of a blog writer. He couldn’t, because he writes for others.
As I have already written in the past, there is a way of saying things in Italy which, whilst probably diffused everywhere, is particularly developed in the Italian political discourse, and very much so when the topic is the Holy Father.
I have already written about the petition of the centre-right newspaper Il Foglio, also officially praising Francis whilst he is petitioned to show some, well, pontifical attributes already. No, let me rephrase it: to show some balls, which hasn’t happened up to now.
Very recently, Sandro Magister has intervened on the issue, but in a far more robust manner. Again, this being Italy and the Pope you must read between the lines. Which, in this case, isn’t really difficult. The emphases are mine.
The incipit/presentation already sets the tone:
A UN report humiliates the Church while exalting the current pontiff. Who is not reacting and is even remaining silent after Belgium has legalized the euthanasia of children. The risks of the strategy of silence adopted by Bergoglio.
This is devastating. The Church is humiliated. Francis is exalted. Fine with him. So desirous he is of popularity that he shuts up even after the Belgian euthanasia law. His strategy is to shut up and be popular. No, really, read it again, and notice the words I have emphasised. This is what the article says, in the only way in which it can be said. If anything, one is surprised at the bluntness.
[…] the cover dedicated to him by the magazine “Rolling Stone,” a full-fledged coronation in the temple of pop culture.
That’s another one. A Pope for the stupid masses. A T-shirt image. The pop culture icon. No, these are not compliments. But boy, this is said in a smart way.
“Or the commendation that by the report of the UN committee on the rights of the child has bestowed on the famous “Who am I to judge?” spoken by Pope Francis, the only one spared in a Catholic Church against which the worst of the worst is said in the same report”.
The unspeakable is told against the Church’s teaching. Francis only is spared, even praised. As the teacher would have asked at school: “Mundabor, what does the author want to say?” Well, mam’, isn’t it clear enough?
It is not easy to enter into the mind of pope Bergoglio. His words are like the tiles of a mosaic whose design is not immediately apparent. He also makes tough and biting remarks, but never at a moment in which they could generate conflict.
Let me rephrase this for you: “No one knows what the heck this man is thinking. His confused statements are all over the place, and do not make sense at all. He is only able to throw punches in the air when there is no adversary around, but he is nowhere to be seen whenever his words would cause opposition from the world”
“And yet it is precisely there that the concealed thought of the Jesuit pope is to be found, his judgment on the present era of the world”.
“What the man thinks, he does not say. He is a Jesuit, you see”.
“The view of the Church is known, and I am a son of the Church,” Francis says and says again. His thought is the same as that which is written in the catechism. And sometimes he recalls this combatively for those who expect him to change doctrine, as in the least-cited passage of his “Evangelii Gaudium,” where he has the harshest of words against the “right” to abortion. But he never proclaims Church teaching out loud at a moment when the dispute over an issue has become heated”.
“He manages to be, at times, Catholic when his official orthodoxy (in which we desperately want to believe, or at least we must say so) can be buried in the middle of a 50,000 words mega-statement, never mentioned by the press. But when there is some heated discussion, he invariably chickens out”.
“He has kept quiet now that the euthanasia of children has been permitted by law in Belgium. He keeps himself apart from the millions of citizens of every faith who in France and in other countries are opposing the dissolution of the idea of the family made up of father, mother, and children. He has remained silent after the unprecedented affront of the UN report”.
“He shuts up about euthanasia, sodomy and destruction of the family, and the unprecedented affront of the EU report. There’s nothing he would not shut up about, if speaking would make him unpopular”.
“With this he intends to blunt the weapons of the adversary. To defeat him with the immense popularity of his figure as pastor of the mercy of God”.
“Look, I have already told you no one knows what the heck the man is doing. I do not want to end up like the “Radio Maria” journalists. So please bear with me and pretend you believe this rubbish”.
“There is also this in the popularity of Francis, a pope “like never before,” finally “one of us,” molded through a copy-and-paste of his open, adaptable statements”.
“The Pope speaks stupid slogans for the masses, that everyone can highjack for his own purposes. Copy-and-paste fluff. That’s why he is popular whilst the Church is insulted”.
“This worldly cunning could not have been used against his predecessor, Benedict XVI. He, the meek one, preferred conflict in the open field, with the courage of the yes that means yes and the no that means no, “in season and out of season,” as in Regensburg, when he lifted the curtain on the theological roots of the connection between faith and violence in Islam, and yet again on the “non-negotiable” questions. This is why the world was so ferocious with him”.
“Can you see the difference? Benedict did not shun the fight, and the world hated him ferociously. Francis avoids anything vaguely resembling a conflict with the world, and the world adores him”.
I have no doubt whatsoever some rather angry phone calls will be directed at the editor of the “Espresso”; a magazine which, whilst undoubtedly leftist, cherishes its supposed unbiased attitude towards issues near to the heart of the Country, and its link to its more moderate readership. Without a doubt, a soft but suitable pressure will be gently applied to the star journalist who must not be allowed to have his own foreign policy; and who, obviously, already knows it, and knows what he can write and how he can avoid breaking too much china.
Wait for some weakly praising articles of Bergoglio from the same author in the days and weeks to come. Alas, it’s how things are done in Italy. First, no enemies.
Still, those who can read will understand the implications, and will know what’s brewing. Plenty of those intelligent and informed readers in Italy; a country that whilst generally very blunt can be – exactly because of the dangers of the usual bluntness – full of subtle communications codes, and where even murders can be and in fact are commissioned without the need to give an explicit order.
Make no mistake, this was a huge torpedo. The Italian way, that is.
“God gives some Popes, God tolerates some Popes and God inflicts some Popes.”
St. Vincent of Lerin
Once again, the intent of the Bishop of Rome concerning what is going to happen in October was clearly to be seen.
Not only has the man allowed “progressive” German prelates to run amok all this time, feigning a neutrality that is merely encouragement to make a mess; but he has now asked Cardinal Kasper to be the keynote speaker for the latest gathering of the College of Cardinals.
Kasper is a high-profile supporter of communion for public adulterers. Can there be any doubt about the message Francis is sending here?
In the same hypocritical style, Kasper has feigned not to offer solutions, merely questions. An easy thing to do, seen that everyone already knows what his answers are, and everyone knows Francis knows it.
It is very obvious Francis is steering the October synod in the direction wished by him, and sending not-very-subtle messages he wants the Kasper fraction to lead the “Spirit” in this matter.
Again, not very subtly he profited from the day to throw another bomb of the for him usual subversive arrogance, this time in the morning, at mass. I quote:
“When we find a Christian [who asks] if it is licit to do this and if the church could do that… [either] they do not have faith, or it is too weak.”
The man has just finished complaining about “casuistry”, and thrown more insults to those who care for doctrine and the respect of the rules. In pure Francispeak, he first insults an abstract category of people (those obsessed with rules and who according to him “have no faith” even if they may believe it – talk about “do not judge”!) and then throws in the bomb: if a Christian asks whether this or that is licit, he either has no faith or he has a too weak one.
If this is not the most stupidly subversive statement ever to get out from the mouth of a Pope I do not know what is. This is an official “everything goes” declaration, presented in sweeping general terms in order for it to be adopted by clerics, and perhaps by media outlets, all over the world following the tactics seen with the “do not judge” nuclear warhead. Very handy for the Extraordinary Synod.
I leave it to others to hide behind their finger and to say that if you look at it with the microscope, this is not really exactly what he wanted to say. This is very obviously what he wants you to understand he has said; because no Pope, however stupid or drunk or drugged, would ever abandon himself to such sweeping generalisations without the intention of having the easy-to-grasp slogan being used and abused everywhere. This is exactly what has happened with the “who am I to judge” nuclear explosion, whose fallout he has been happily enjoying since.
Please Lord, in your good time, free us from this scourge.
The Scottish Government may be moving toward an official and direct ingerence of government officials in the education of a child.
This is not the social worker checking that the “vulnerable” mother remembers to feed her baby, or is sufficiently sober during the day, or does not beat her child to death. This is about checking – if not immediately, very soon – that every child is raised in a way that pleases Big Brother.
Do you want to instil Christian values in your children? Well this is obviously homophobic and otherwise intolerant, and cannot be tolerated. How can the child become an “inclusive” member of the Scottish Society, if the “human rights” of the LGBTRSARSLF people are denied and the child raised in a “racist” environment? Well, this clearly cannot be tolerate. Big Brother to the rescue!
This initiative might well fail, this time. But it clearly shows what the trend is, and how the social engineering Nazis want to take control of absolutely everything.
You have been warned.
The way the Bishop of Rome starts to tackle administrative simplification in the Vatican is by… creating another administrative layer and using the usual tricks of the political trade: a new organism with a new name, more red tape, and lots of grandiloquent talk.
Both IOR and APSA remain (obviously; only revolutionary nutcases would have thought the Vatican would close its own bank), but now there is an Ueberministry meant to do what was supposed to be done before, too. Or do you think before today there were no auditing, no controls, and no accountability rules? Cue subterranean power struggles for who gets the money to spend, and who controls whom. That at the end someone might be held accountable, is not certain. The Commander-in-Chief is one who puts his perverted buddy at the head of the Vatican bank, and leaves it there when the scandal erupts. Oh yeah, this is the one who wants to clean up the Vatican.
This reminds me all too much of the usual politicians’ reaction: let’s change some names, move a couple of offices here and a couple of competences there, and create a new organisation with a new name that we can put on our flag.
The height of the hypocrisy is to say the wealth of the Vatican must be used to help the needy. Clearly, someone seems to think up to yesterday it was used to buy Mozzettas.
Now don’t get me wrong: it might even be that in future corruption in the Vatican will be reduced, and accountability become more effective. But as always, if this happens it will be because there is a real will to make it happen and men willing to fight for it; not because more red tape has been created, more potential for conflicts of attribution and rivalry between various organs has been generated, and a new name has been fed to the press.
I hope the transparency begins by telling us how much the army of consultants hired by Francis is costing. Hey, “the Church must use its wealth to help the poor”, so one thinks he is entitled to know…
I will wait for the results for a very moderate amount of confidence. For the moment, I notice the methods are the same used everywhere else.
At least we have some good news: at the head of the new Ueberministry was put Cardinal Pell.
It could have been Maradiaga.
One reads, every now and then, criticism of those who criticise the Pope. At times, this criticism is not only based on consideration of opportunity, but is linked to an attack of the character of the critics: you criticise the Pope, because you are bad and want to make yourself important by playing holier than thou with the oh so good Holy Father.
This kind of thinking neglects a fundamental consideration: that for a Catholic it is not easy to criticise a Pope, and if one wants to play holier than thou the Pope is the last person with whom to play such a play. In fact, it can easily be said not only a blogger, but every Catholic talking with his friends cannot criticise the Pope without putting his own credibility on the line. He must, therefore, very much pay attention to what he says.
Another extremely banal consideration is that no one likes to criticise the Pope. As the successor of Peter, the Pontiff is met with a natural desire to like him and approve of him. The idea that there would be an army of Catholic bloggers just enjoying their criticism of the Pope is evident nonsense. How such people would then be taken seriously by other Catholics is not said. How this behaviour would now have come suddenly in fashion, is also not explained.
These critics talk without looking at reality, without considering the facts.
The criticism of the Pope is based on objective reality, observable by everyone. A reality that has been observed not once or twice, but dozen of times, with a repeatedly scandalous behaviour the Pontiff always refused to correct. Similarly, the sound criticism of the Bishop of Rome you read around is never based on the kind of emotional sweeping generalisations people may use with, say, politicians – you know the type: “all politicians are thieves”, & Co. – but is constantly based on undeniable facts.
Now, Catholicism is not based on whims, or on easy emotionalism. It is based on hard Truths of Faith to which everyone is bound, and which bind the Pope first as he is the first of God's servants.
What shall we do, then: ignore reality? When has it become a Christian precept that Popes are not a legitimate object of well-deserved criticism? Since when it is Christian to allow scandal to go unchecked, when the one who gives scandal happens to be the Pope? Is the Pope not bound by the rules? Are we not accessory in his son by silence, when we are silent concerning the scandal given by the Pope? What kind of delusion is that?
I believe in God, the Father Almighty. I believe all that the Church believes, and profess all that the Church professes. I simply cannot become suddenly blind, when the most elementary tenets of the Church of Christ, and with them the obedience to God, are put into question. I cannot suspend my duty to react to scandal exactly when the scandal comes from the most dangerous of places. This would be not only blindness, but wilful sinful neglect of my own duties as a Catholic. This would mean to decide that Christ should take a place in the second row when the Pope has put himself in the first; nay, that I should simply ignore Christ everytime the Pope is at variance with him. How can I, or everyone else, blind myself to reality without becoming an accessory to Francis' sins?
There there is the objective dimension of the scandal. When the Pope gives scandal, the damage is bigger than when even several Cardinals together do it. No one on earth can give as much scandal, and confuse so many faithful, as the Pope. Therefore, the problem of a Pope giving scandal simply puts in the shadow the antics of every other Cardinal or Bishop or Priest. We cannot ignore this self-evident reality, that a child of five can easily grasp.
Besides, we are not talking of personal interpretations here. Francis' trespasses are many, richly documented, made under the sun without any shame. He even goes to the extraordinary length of documenting them in spontaneous home made videos! And we are supposed to shut up in front of such scandal? Really? What kind of Christianity is that, that orders one to forget Christ?
I refuse to do so. I refuse to do so as a blogger, as a friend, as a relative, as a colleague. I will not ignore the simple reality on the ground and take refuge in a delusion of normality that is just not there. I cannot ignore the Pope more than I can ignore the reality of Church teaching; and if I do the first, I unavoidably do the second. There is simply nowhere to hide. Christ and Francis can't be both right, it's as simple as that.
Now, one can understand that a priest may, out of his hierarchical loyalty to the Church, be nuanced in his criticism of the Pope. But when a priest accuses the critics of the Pope of having issues of their own merely because they look at reality for what it is, he is being disingenuous. What he is asking us to do, is to become deaf to every stupid statement coming from the Pope – very many of those, unfortunately – in a sort of “Pope before Christ” slogan that is simply unacceptable, and it is very sinful in his demand that we all become accessory to Francis' sin.
Delude yourself if you want to. I refuse to do so.
The Pope's good servant, but Christ's first.
And it came to pass a teenage girl was “punished with a baby” (© Obama 2008); which presupposes sex, of course, but modern parents do not really care for chastity, so there you are.
Unfortunately, there were no abortion clinics within the state; therefore, something convenient and fast to get rid of the baby will have to be found, without the hassle and inconvenience of traveling.
Therefore, would-be (actually, would-not-be) grandma bought some unauthorised
medicaments lethal poisons on the internet to get rid of the baby fast and on the cheap. I notice the news have no trace whatever of a father. Don’t ask me why I am not surprised.
The poison is bought, and the girl proceeds to kill the baby in her womb. The thing goes wrong, and she must be recovered in the hospital for the complications of a half-botched chemical abortion. Two years later, the mother is charged. She faces jail time, and serves her right.
I cannot avoid noticing a few things here:
1. It is fine if you kill your baby in a far away abortion clinic; it is not fine if you kill it with internet-sourced poisons. The law protects the life of the girl (and the abortion isn’t without danger, either), but the baby’s rights are nowhere to be seen. “Look”, say the prosecutors, “we are perfectly fine if you kill your baby; but please move your ass to the nearest butchering place…”.
2. One never ceases to wonder at the interior life of such people. To look on the internet for a poison that would kill your grandchild on the cheap.
3. Wait for the Abortion Nazis to try to ride this: see, they will say, nowadays to abort a baby isn’t easy enough, so we must provide for more opportunities to kill the baby; otherwise the “vulnerable” parents (or rather parent) will recur to the pill, or to a coat hanger. This argument was used in Italy when there were an estimated few thousand illegal abortions a year, and obviously a death every now and then as a result of obvious, grave criminal offences. Now we are easily above 100,000 deaths a year in the same country. Congratulations. Very humanitarian.
4. The would-not-be grandmother now faces some jail time; I can’t imagine it will be very long.
The baby was killed.
The Bishop complains because when he was an altar boy “he could only keep his hands so far apart”.
A first parish priest tells him the Traditional Mass is invalid.
A second priest says it is prohibited. He seems to relent after being showed the documents, then tries to have the mass suppressed again.
The bishop says the people only understand Spanish, you see…
You may think this is a joke, and something like that could never happen in the Church after Summorum Pontificum.
You would be wrong.
May the Lord reward this good man of God.
From Gloria TV.
Saint Gregory the Great delves deeper into the symbolism of the fire and brimstone that God used to punish the sodomites: “Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.” (St. Gregory the Great, Commento morale a Giobbe, XIV, 23, vol. II, p…
View original post 25 more words
Weigel’s argument is that Cardinal Ottaviani’s conviction that “error has no right” is now being used against us by rabid secularists, maintaining that Christianity must be silenced because…. error has no rights. This would show that Ottaviani’s conviction was wrong.
Now, apart from the huge problem that the Cardinal’s opinion is what the Church has always believed, the argument just doesn’t work from a logical point of view.
The idea that Error has no rights is not proven wrong because others oppress Christians or the Church using the same argument, for the very reason that… they are wrong. Christians have always been persecuted, and will always be persecuted irrespective of whether they hold to Truth in matters of religious freedom, or…
View original post 262 more words
I thought Berlusconi was prone to gaffes; but boy, our humble and non-judgmental Bishop of Rome beats him every day of the week.
From a recent homily. Emphasis mine:
To know Jesus is a gift of the Father; it is He who makes us know Jesus. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, who is a great worker. Not a trade unionist — He is a great worker and He works in us always.
Now, I am not a friend of much trade unionism – though not of all; the Gipper was a trade unionist, too – ; but even I balk in front of the sweeping generalisations of the humble Bishop. He is not new to giving wholesale insults to entire categories of people, or professions; from the old maids to the flight assistants, and from those who count their rosaries to those who say their prayers by rote, many are the people the Shepherd of Tenderness obviously doesn’t like.
The last ones are the young who follow the “fashion” of the Mass of the Ages; and this one is only a few days old. You would think he learns from his mistakes. You wish.
One wonders how this man can continue with his careless words even after the very many times in which they have forced Vatican official to correct, precise, state the contrary, or otherwise show how embarrassed they are. It is as if in his humbleness, Francis wouldn’t care a straw whether he offends entire categories. So he continues to say whatever he pleases. Let other repair the damage. Why should he care.
Really? What arrogance. What childish behaviour. What utter amateurishness. Not even a North Korean Head of State – which Francis is – would express himself in such a careless, unplanned, devil-may-care, “who gives a shirt” way all the time.
Thank Goodness he isn’t one to judge. Otherwise we’d have every Traditionalist attacked at every step.
I wonder when Francis will hit the bottom.
A video that has been posted to my comment box (with many thanks to Harold Norwood) is the latest example of this.
This seven-minutes-too-long video seems an improvised after-lunch initiative after a glass too much; an extemporaneous, obviously unplanned address at Protestants of the Pentecostal variety.
The quality of the video is clearly amateurish. Francis does not talk in any structured way. He sits in a very strange manner, at an uncomfortable angle. When he gets near to the camera, the image is unflattering. The camera moves and zooms in and out in a way that would make a professional – and even a good amateur – cringe. It is as if someone had switched on a camera after a grappa or two and had said “will you say something for us, Holy Father?” And there goes the Rambling Bishop, never able to say “no” to a switched-on camera…
It is as if Francis would insist on devaluing the office of the Pope at any possible and impossible occasion. Try to imagine Benedict XVI, or even Paul VI, trusting the image and the message of the Church to improvised camera talks.
What he says, though, is even worse than how he says it. There is in this message no mention whatever of who is right and who is wrong. The Church and heretics are “un po’… mi permetto la parola… separati” (“a bit… I allow myself the word… separated”), as if even mentioning to Heretics that they have separated themselves from the Church of Christ were not acceptable. The reasons for the separation are in ous sins, he says, so that it really can’t be seen anymore who would be to blame for the existence of hundred of millions of Protestants. Why did you choose death, Thomas More? Why did you march to the scaffold, Bishop Fisher? Don’t you know we are all sinners?
He even calls the chap “brother bishop”. Countless Catholics have suffered persecution or death to avoid this utter crap. This man just doesn’t care.
This separation between the Bishop of Rome and other, erm, er “bishops” (his words, not mine) would be the fruit of “malintesi”, “misunderstandings”. There’s a long history of sins on both sides, you see.
Who is guilty for this? Everyone! Because you see, we are all sinners, so the boundaries between the wrong sects and the right Church can be wonderfully blurred.
We must find each other as brothers, and cry together as brothers. How this finding and crying will help reconcile different theologies he does not say; but he doesn’t seem very aware the theological differences are there, either, so this is par for the course. His theology seems to stop at the requirement that Catholics and Heretics “praise Jesus Christ as the only Lord of History”, though I was never aware that non-Catholics worship Baal. Similarly, he seems to think that if people “hug”, the Lord will complete the work in some way, performing a “miracle” for which he has no intention of doing anything sensible, or truthful, whatsoever.
After-lunch fluff for the masses.
Heavens, this one is Pope. He should be the one who forcefully extols the Truth of the Only Church. He should be the one warning all the time that outside of the Church there is no salvation. He should stress his role of Vicar of Christ and Successor of Peter, and his duty to call all the shattered sheep to be united in the only place where they are supposed to be, rather than presenting himself merely as a “brother” wishing a hug, and not even daring to say which one is the right side.
This is Francis’ ecumenism: I am OK, you are OK. We are separated. Shit happens. No need to examine why, because it’s everyone’s fault.
Not only there is in this video no mention whatever of the intrinsic superiority of the Church compared to every heresy, and of the danger for the heretic’s soul if he continues in error; but there is an insisted lowering of the Papacy to buddy level, and of the Church to just the role of a member of the family of Christ. Manzoni’s citation is the only thing that can be saved of these seven minutes; but it clearly does not save the flawed argument of one waiting for miracles, rather than being Pope. There is no defence of Catholic Truth, no call to conversion; there is not even the wish for the heretics’ conversion, then this expected miracle does not necessarily entail it; and the Proddies listening to it will get this message very clearly: if both sides have sinned, both sides must change.
Let’s hug. God will sort it out.
One of these days we will wake up to find on youtube videos of Francis chatting with Monsignor Ricca, or cooking a proper kosher meal together with his buddy, the Rabbi.
This amateurish video and its confused rambling are a fitting reflection of this amateurish and confused papacy, and of a man completely addicted to media appearances and willing to sink himself and the papacy to casual rambling level for the sake of an easy popularity and of insipid, emotional, illogical, nonsensical hot air that carefully avoids the issue – to wit: heresy – and prefers to take refuge in easy waffling about the obvious fact that “we are all sinners”.
Of course we are all sinners. But they are heretics. This makes a big difference for Catholicism, but I am not sure it does for Francis.
The fish stinks from the head down. Looking at this head, can you be surprised at the mighty stink?
The “Cardinal Vincent Quisling Nichols” Reblog
From the Pope’s address to the bishops of England And Wales (emphases mine):
Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth.
In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a…
View original post 792 more words
I am, I must admit, a rather short-tempered chap; particularly, as it is natural, when the provocation concerns something I deeply love. You can, therefore, imagine how I feel as I write this, on the day the interview between Dr Scalfari and our Subversive-In-Chief is published.
I have read the Italian version this morning, and (even by the standards to which Francis has by now accustomed us) it took my breath away. “No two weeks without unspeakable scandal” seems to be the real motto of this – we can safely say it – historically appalling pontificate; a pontificate that will go down in history as one of the most infamous low points in the entire existence of the Church.
The translation of Rorate Caeli of the most important parts is here, where you…
View original post 911 more words
Justin Welby, the man masquerading as the so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, has given another example of his and his Mickey Mouse church's diabolical disorientation.
Welby is at the head of a motley group of heretics with such huge differences among them that they are not anymore recognisable as members of the same sect, whilst many of them are certainly not even recognisable as Christians.
The way Welby reacts to the situation could never be by defending Christian values, of course; it is doubtful whether he believes in God, and if he does this deity can only be a homemade concoction of half-backed common places. What he does instead is, in pure Anglican style, trying to make everyone happy.
If you follow the link (warning: the rag has often indecent images or content in its side links) you will immediately see what I am talking about.
Some of his people are afraid of apostasy, but some others don't want to become “irrelevant”. The coE must embark on a journey that tries to have Christianity on board, but who knows where the journey will end (hell, methinks). Some will do the one thing, some the opposite; we must accept it, because doing as one pleases is our religion, says Welby in so many words.
He also says things so outlandish you wonder about his drinking habits. Those who defend Christian values on so-called same-sex marriage – sodomy seems not to be a problem for this man; homosexuality is probably a gift from God – might be called “racist”, but he does not spend one single word against the accusation. On the contrary, the man lets it transpire that this is cause to serious concern for him. Is God racist? Hhhmmm, interesting question… we must answer it whilst remaining “relevant”, of course, then it should never be said that to us Christ comes first. Particularly if we are called “racist” a consequence.
Christ or relevance? In this question lies all the – let me say it again: diabolical – confusion of the so-called church of England; once at least a Christian outfit, if an heretical one, and now just a bunch of ridiculous clowns – many of them homosexual, or even sodomites – in drags.
And it came to pass a faggot recovered in the hospital after a heart attack told the priest giving him the last rites (I imagine the risk of death must have been rather serious, then…) how beautiful he found it that Francis is one who “does not judge” those whom he calls “gay”.
(Let us stop for a moment here. Several months after Francis' disgraceful slogan, this has become the banner of sodomites the world over. Francis does nothing against it. If he himself is popular, then clearly everything must be fine).
The fag allegedly asks the priest if he has a problem with him being a pervert. Allegedly, the priest says “no”, but then inexplicably – according to the report – refuses to administer him the Sacrament. If it doesn't seem to make sense, it's because it doesn't.
Let us, then, reconstruct how things very probably went, if Catholic priests do what they are supposed to do.
An obviously unrepentant fag is in the hospital after a heart attack, and is either looking for a fight and some headlines, or wants the priest to tell him that homosexuality is next to holiness. The priest might have been more or less orthodox and sensible, and might have told him – or not, as the case may be – what an atrocious perversion homosexuality in itself – qua homosexuality; not talking of the sin of the sodomites here – is.
At some point, though, the priest must have asked the fag if he is fine with his perversion; because you see, if one is openly impugning the known Truth he is clearly not in the position to receive the sacrament, and it is therefore fully irrelevant whether he has a live-in Elton at home or is rather like Daffyd, “the only gay in the village”.
Now, let us see the facts: a priest goes to the rather unusual step of refusing the sacrament to a man officially at risk of dying: was it because he didn't like his mug, or because the conditions weren't there? Yeah, I thought that, too…
You see again here how militant faggotry works: they attack Catholicism and try to force it to bend to their own perversion. They do so often with malice aforethought, so that it is certainly possible the man called the priest precisely in order to provoke him with the “are you fine I am a pervert” thing.
Last but not least, the idiot. This must be the man, or woman, or perverted mixture of the two, who told the press the hospital expects those “working” in the hospital to “adhere to our values”.
Which values? Sodomy? Should the priest have blessed the fag's perversion? Does he work for the hospital?
Or the value is “Tolerance”, perhaps? Well, if tolerance is a value, why it is not tolerated that a Catholic priest does his job? And what does this idiot think, that he/she/whatever can tell to a Catholic priest how to adhere to his own values?
Obviously, there might have been some supreme cock-up from the journalist here; this one here is able to say that the Church “suggests” that “gay couples” are “living in sin”. No she doesn't “suggest” it, you nincompoop. Stop getting your Catholic theology from nonsensical interviews. You're supposed to be a journalist, not the washerwoman.
So there you are: fags and their minions want to impose their own perversion on everyone, and be accepted – otherwise you are raping their “human rights” – as normal, or even good. Heck, they even think they can pick and choose which sacraments they can receive!
We must stop this aggressive militant faggotry at once. We must react as we did with the ” Man Made Global Warming” madness. It can be done. Just let us stop being the sensitive sissies, and the humous for outspoken journalists, politicians and even bishops will be created.
This, or prepare for a Nazi dictatorship of the most intolerant kind.
It won't be funny. Just look at what they do with each other's backside.
The Communion Reblog
From the pleasantly surprising mini-essay of Archbishop Mueller (I know, I know…) concerning marriage, some rather interesting excerpts. Emphases mine.
Marriage can be understood and lived as a sacrament only in the context of the mystery of Christ. If marriage is secularized or regarded as a purely natural reality, its sacramental character is obscured. Sacramental marriage belongs to the order of grace, it is taken up into the definitive communion of love between Christ and his Church. Christians are called to live their marriage within the eschatological horizon of the coming of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God.
Pastors are obliged, by love for the truth, “to exercise careful discernment of situations” […] And yet they cannot be admitted to the Eucharist. Two reasons are given for this: a) “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love…
View original post 1,100 more words
Russian members of Parliament have asked the Russian Foreign office to examine the recent Belgian Nazi Law about Euthanasia in order to see whether a ban on adoption of Russian children by Belgian parents might be in order.
It makes sense. It is infinitely better to be an orphan anywhere on the planet, than the child of adopting parents who might suggest to him that he terminates himself, do not prevent him from doing so, or simply “support” him in his decision to commit suicide because hey, they are good Nazi parents. “At some point – the parents might say to the terminally ill child – it’s time to go into the oven”.
As pointed out already, as it stands the child would have to be terminally ill; but the tendency we have seen by divorce and abortion and, in Belgium itself, by euthanasia point out to a rapid metastasis of the cancer; this, without considering the simple fact that there can be no justification whatsoever for euthanasia even in case of terminal illness.
So, a Russian baby girl might be given in adoption to “enlightened” (ha!) Belgian parents who, in a couple of years’ time, might pave the way for her termination; because hey, she’s ill. Actually, in a couple of years’ time she might not even have to be ill; merely willing to die.
Looks like a fiction movie.
It’s XXI Century Belgium.
The Nazis are among us.