Monthly Archives: March 2014
And it came to pass the Bishop of Rome was supposed to act as confessor, in order to encourage people to avail themselves of a sacrament for which in his own personal “off-the-cuff” theology there seem to be no need; still, a laudable initiative in itself, as it goes towards putting a partial patch over the mess Francis himself causes with his reckless talk about salvation through following one's conscience, and being a mafioso as a requirement for going to hell.
The only problem in that is that a confessional is a rather discreet place, and the photo-op would not have been so good.
And then the man sees acamera lens, and another confessional, and promptly seizes the moment; once again showing to us devout fans what a humbling effect a camera lens has on him. The world, which loves these little stunts, is pleasantly surprised. The Pope goes to confession! You don't say?! But wait, was he not infallible? Or is that infrangible? And look, he asked to be confessed by a simple priest! I thought it had to be a Cardinal Archbishop! At least! …. Whatever…..What a man of the people! He doesn't judge gays, you know…
Another day. Another step towards decline and persecution. Another camera lens. Another cheap papal stunt.
With all his shortcomings, boy, how I miss Benedict…
I have no objection to censorship, if it is done within a settled legal framework; that is, by a qualified Censor librorum who, if he withholds a Nihil obstat, gives and is required to give precise reasons for doing so. I would have no criticism if the system were not only restored, but extended to the blogosphere, and, of course, to clerics and laics who write columns and editorials in 'catholic' journals! But it has fallen into disuse. My apprehension is that a public and canonical process might have been replaced by something furtive; that a bishop (or whatever) might act resentfully but covertly because of views which are doctrinally orthodox but which don't suit his personal agenda. Or that censorship might function as an informal, unminuted, understanding within an Inner Circle that X is 'off-message'; with subsequent disadvantages for X. In other words, I fear that what, at first sight, looks like a libertarian advance (the disappearance of formal Censorship), might in reality be simply a Bullies' Charter. As I have written before, I regard Dogma and Law as the safeguard of ordinary Catholics, both lay and clerical, against Arbitrary Power.
Firstly, I understand Father's concerns: when official control is substituted for unofficial suggestions to shut up, a huge door is open to, well, episcopal bullying. It grates me no end, for example, that in the matter of “Protect the Pope” the bishop asked Deacon Nick to stop blogging, without any public explanation of why a bishop asks a very public blogger to stop his very public blogging activity. Basically, it simply cannot be excluded Deacon Nick was requested to, ahem, “pull a Werling” and just be silent, losing his face as the bishop saved his. Fortunately, when Deacon Nick informed his readers of the fact he did not just state that he had decided to, but that he had been requested by the Bishop to, well, shut up; which in turn caused the many mails to the bishop; which in turn caused the press release with the notorious words I have already mentioned on this blog, and which put bishop Campbell, erm, rather in the soup.
Father Hunwicke's fear that “a Bullies' Charter” might be advancing is, therefore, entirely justified. Imagine that: you are a blogger priest, or a blogger deacon, and the Bishop summons you and tells you to stop blogging and not to tell your readers who has asked you to do so, in order not to foment “division” and “disharmony”. What now, skipper? When you add to this that that particular blogger has been asked by the bishop to stop blogging (call it as you want: that's what it is) because he was being a brave Catholic blogger, you get the picture.
Having said that, Father Hunwicke's censorship proposal is in my eyes entirely unfeasible. The huge number of blogging priests out there would cause an unmanageable administrative work and cost only to control what is going on; it would obviously be completely unrealistic to think that every blog post receives a previous nihil obstat, but it is not realistic to think that every blogger with holy orders receives one before starting to blog, and is monitored afterwards. This as we write the year 2014; but what might happen in the year 2024 or 2034 makes the idea of either previous control or institutionalised monitoring even less viable. Besides, if a nihil obstat is necessary for a new priestly blog, it would be very easy to put sand in the mechanism by just “delaying” approvals for new priestly blogs; there's no urgency to give approval to your blog, Father X; there are enough already of those.
Moreover, many priestly blogs exist exactly to provide a voice outside of the mainstream Vatican PC information. Would an excellent priestly blog like Traditional Catholic Priest obtain the coveted nihil obstat? I doubt it. What about Father Rodriguez? Or Gloria TV? Would we ever know that such and such an initiative was proposed and rejected, and why? You wish. It would be covert bullying instead of overt one; but in the end, much of a muchness. I do not doubt the likes of Nicholson and the other chap with the sword would obtain the Nihil obstat, but as Nicholson and his ilk are part of the problem we would be on square one.
This, only considering the blogs run by priests or deacons. If we extend the policy to the immense world of blogging laymen, the idea becomes utterly outlandish; besides the fact that most lay bloggers would react to the request of the bishop to stop blogging with a smile; if they are in a good day, that is. Hey, the bishops – and now the Bishop of Rome – are the main reason why they are blogging in the first place, so it would be like asking a physician to stop curing bubonic plague because there's an epidemy going on.
What to do, then?
My idea would be – and this is also what is going to happen, volens nolens – that everything continues as it is; that blogger priests blog because they are priests who feel they should blog and this is perfectly in line with the new evangelisation mantra, and that bishops stop them if they feel the blogger priest should be stopped; which unavoidably will – unless the priest does not even want to say that he was requested to stop blogging – be subject to public scrutiny, possibly involving not only bishop Campbell, but bishop Heinz and bishop Baxter as well.
Obviously, a priest or deacon can blog anonymously, de facto if possibly not de iure. The old and lamented Kreuz.net blog – forced to close by the German Gaystapo – was certainly the work of priests, and of excellent ones at that. But again, those must have been priests who needed that their bishop does not know they are blogging, lest the V II thought police intervenes.
The fact is, though, that by the grace of God we live in a time of atomised information sources, and this seems destined to increase in the foreseeable future. No bishop, no censor librorum, no Pope, not even the US secret services will be able to shut down this flow of information. The control of this tsunami of ASCII characters will be left to the reader, who will pick among the bonanza of sources those he find most worthy of his time. The reader will decide if he finds, say, Campbell's soup or the Deacon's pie or Mundabor's fettuccine to his taste, and there is no way anyone else can change this.
In short, this means that the best way for the bishops to prevent the spreading of bad blogging is by encouraging the spreading of sound Catholic instruction. This will in turn automatically filter away the bad sources, and reward the good ones.
Unfortunately, the spreading of sound Catholic teaching is exactly what bishop Campbell wants to prevent; which in turn means what we already know from the start: to wit, that bishops who try to stop bloggers are embarrassed by the bloggers making the job they are supposed but refuse to do: feed the sheep with sound instruction, fight heresy and heterodoxy, and care for the salvation of souls.
I prefer Mundabor's (or Deacon Nick's, or Father Z's) healthy homemade fare, and thank you very much.
Please go on “Protect the Pope” (please, please do!) and read there about the “Tablet” correspondent now suspended for calling the Pontiff Emeritus “The Rat”.
Now, please let us understand ourselves here. I am not prone to any form of Papolatry, or excessive deference to the Pope whenever one thinks that the Pope is seriously damaging the cause of Catholicism. I have written here very often, and will continue to do so, that we must not be blind, and if a Pope behaves like, say, a clown we must call him out as clown even if he happens to be Pope, because the fact that he is the Pope makes it so much graver that he acts like, say, a clown.
I also have no doubt myself that this papacy is an utter disgrace for the Church; that with it God is punishing us; that we are going to go through terrible times. I have also made no mystery of the fact that I wish the end of this Papacy, because I am persuaded that the danger of a new conclave is preferable to the danger of the continuation of this papacy, with the attached appointments of cardinals and bishops. I do not need to remind you that a faithful Catholic has the right to ask the Lord for the painless death of the Pope, if he thinks that this Pope is gravely damaging the Church. It goes without saying that the same faithful is not for this reason exempted from praying for the eternal salvation of the very Pope he thinks it would be better to see six feet under. In my case, I am so astonishingly soft that I limit myself to pray the Lord for the restoration of Tradition, which theoretically includes events like the conversion of the Bishop of Rome to sound Catholicism, or a judicious toccatina (“little touch”; that's how Italians call a small, but worrying heart attack) or other problem leaving him healthy enough to care for his soul, but suggesting to him that he steps aside. Basically, I am being as soft as the final aim I am praying for allows, but I still wish the attainment of the aim in precedence to the Pope's life. Yep. This, just in case you think I am a retiring wallflower thinking we will advance spiritually if we drink the same brand of mineral water as the Pope, or none if he drinks none.
I have, though, three observations to make.
1. The way I see it, every criticism of the Pope must concern something he does or says or thinks. You criticise the Pope for a reason, the reason generally being that he has said or keeps saying or thinks of doing something damaging for the faith and the souls of Catholics. But not even this robustly critical Southerner can condone the comparison of the Pope with one of the most universally despised animals on this earth; a comparison made in a fully gratuitous way, as purest name-calling. This is not the reaction to something outlandish that Benedict said, and that called for such a comparison (for example: if the Pontiff Emeritus had hypothetically extolled the merciful life and familial ties of rats; or their being non-judgmental; or their smelling like the canalisation; or the like). No, this is simply a very gratuitous, uncalled for, insulting way of calling a Pope Emeritus. If he had called him “Pope Holy Water”, or even “Pope Mozzetta”, or “Pope Bespoke”, at least one would see there is a criticism there of a certain way of seeing the Papacy; there would be a message. What, however, Mr Mickens writes says nothing more than his despise for Benedict, full stop.
If the usual Papolater criticises the words Mr Mickens uses, is one thing. If after what I have just written even I am scandalised, it might be quite another.
2. The Mickens' type of people are those always ready to accuse Catholics of being “uncharitable” for not wanting to cope with every kind of abomination or scandal. How this should be “charitable”, is beyond me.
These alleged “tolerant” people generally are the worst. Mr Mickens seems no exception.
3. I truly hope Mr Mickens does not lose his job because of this. Whilst this is bad, and very bad for a journalist, if this is his livelihood – as it generally is – I truly hope it will not come down to that. Let him apologise and pay more attention in future, but it would be bad if Catholics would now call for such a crisis in the life of a man who could have a wife, children and/or a mortgage, because of a very stupid Facebook message. Firing Mr Mickens would not change the Tablet, for sure.
You see, perhaps we “intolerant” people are those who, in the end, have more sense of proportions even towards those who have no sense of decency.
In the land of boorish populism, Pinocchio masses and Tango masses, (you will see a familiar face in both I am afraid) it was only a matter of time before this here happened: two lesbians having their own child baptised and being confirmed themselves.
Now, I have already written about the fact that a priest is supposed to baptise if, and only if, he thinks that the child has a reasonable, well-grounded hope to be raised in the Catholic faith. Say, two Jews are thinking of conversion, but they want their offspring to be baptised and raised as Catholics in the meantime. I never got a problem with the fact that Felix Mendelssohn and his siblings were all baptised before their parents converted to Christianity. In that case, it made sense to do so, and there was more than solid ground to believe the children would be raised in the Christian (if, alas, not Catholic) faith. But this here is beyond belief.
Firstly, one must ask how well grounded is the chance that a child will be raised in the Catholic faith if the people he lives with are the very epitome, and very publicly so, of all that the Church opposes. This is as if Stalin would have asked for his son to be baptised; with the difference that in Stalin’s case one might have hoped the mother of a child was a closet Christian; no risk of the sort here.
Secondly, one must ask what kind of demented – or rather, perverted – priest can allow two lesbians to stand in front of the altar and the congregation and state that they believe everything that the church believes and profess everything that the church professes and pretend he believes what they say.
There isn’t much to say here: this is how the Church of Bergoglio sanctions abominations under the disguise of “mercy” at all costs; only in isolated cases at the beginning, and more and more frequently in future, so that if this disgraceful papacy is allowed to continue it is not at all unthinkable that in five or ten years time such exercises will be the norm, and every fag and dyke in the land will feel authorised to be extremely incensed should a priest deny the baptism to the child, or the confirmation to them.
For the record: I think such a baptism is madness. It would be a madness even if the godfathers were Catholics of unimpeachable credentials; but in this case the godparents seem to be friends of the “family”, so they are perverts by association, full stop. That one of them is supposed to be Ms Kirchner already says it all about what is going on here.
The sacraments only have sense if they are given in conformity to the sense and function they have. If everyone should be baptised just because he is born, then I wonder why Francis does not proceed to a declaration of Automatic Universal Baptism of All The Unbelievers In The World Upon Birth and be done with it. At that point, you can give communion to every public adulterer because of the hope some sacramental grace may flow from the desire of the adulterer to receive communion, and give give the sacrament of confirmation to, say, avowed lesbians (I know, it’s absurd; just making a point here… I hope…AAARRRGGHHH!!!)
You will say: “but Mundabor, this is not how it works. You just can’t give baptism automatically to everyone”.
I know, it’s not how it works.
Exactly this is the point.
The sensitive natures among you had better not to follow this link, containing Messa in Latino's blogpost – and many shocking images; a number of them containing nudity, and nudity in church – about the desecration and vandalising of one of the most famous churches worldwide, the Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Montmartre, Paris.
In a shocking (absence of) reaction that has been linked to also in the article, the Cardinal of Paris minimises the events, in substance saying that not Catholicism per se is the target, but rather this is generic “anticlericalism” that has, this time, expressed himself in the vandalism and profanation of a Catholic church; but hey, it could have been a Mosque, right?
In doing this, Cardinal Vingt-Trois follows the most basic instinct of the Western clergy: minimise, stick the head in the sand, and hope the problem goes away by itself.
Things are happening in France and all over the West that would have been unthinkable only a decade ago. The shepherds do perfectly nothing. Instead of giving three interviews a day and declare open war to the open anticlerical spirit of the French government (as abundantly documented in the linked article: I spare you the disgusting details) and demanding that the people rise against this desecration and shame, the Cardinal deflects toward a vague, very effeminate whining about some generic people who, in some generic way, seem not to like the generic notion of religion. Pissing on the altar and writing blasphemous and obscene phrases on the very floor and wall of the Cathedral must then be considered a generic expression of generic anticlerical spirit. They haven't anything against us, you know! Phew!
One does not know who are the worst enemies of the Church, the idiots desecrating it or the prelates surrendering to the mob without any reaction worthy of the name.
The persecution is not coming because of the people who would love to burn churches to the ground. Those have always been around. During the decades of Communism there were probably many more of those around.
The persecution is coming because those who have been entrusted with the defense of Catholic values and places of worship have chosen to be silent.
For a long time this little effort has been saying, together with other littler and less little efforts, that Francis' is a Papacy that serves the enemies of the Church.
Slowly, what used to be considered the fixation of a tiny minority of cranks – not that we are, of course; but the Cafeteria troops loved to characterise us in that way – is becoming more and more mainstream.
One of those more attentive to what is happening, and among the most outspoken among the prudent, diplomatic mainstream media continues to be Sandro Magister.
The last article appeared on “Chiesa” has a devastating, even mockingly ironic title: “Francis, the First Pope Lauded by Secular Opinion”.
Now, in Italy it is often not the author who picks the title but the titolista, a man whose job is to write headlines that entice the reader without – hopefully – betraying the article's content. In this case, the titolista is pretty accurate, though, then I am curious to see who will, whilst in a sober state, dare to deny the authenticity of these telling words.
The article isn't much different, though it cannot be called equally excoriating. It is very clear that Francis' policy is more attractive to the world than to Catholics, and that it can be safely said the more orthodox Catholics love a Pope, the more the world will hate him. Seeing in this way, Francis popularity in the world is a clear – if unspoken – accusation of the fundamental betrayal of Church values his “line” represents.
Yes, the piece is not a frontal attack to the Bishop of Rome. This is not the way the Italian mainstream press works; and you will notice that in the end Magister gives Francis the usual lip tribute, by noticing that he mistrusts his own popularity; though Magister also does not hide from us that Francis mentions Freud as he so does. As the Italian says, intelligenti pauca.
In the years to come, more and more among the mainstream will wake up to the reality of an utterly catastrophic Pope. Hopefully, in time this will spread enough to taint the image of the “great Franciscan Pope”. As the man is mainly moved by his own vanity and search for approval, widespread opposition – or mockery and ridicule if needs be; then a Pope who makes a mockery of the Papacy should be mocked out of love for the Papacy – might be the only thing short of Divine intervention that leads him to be a pale imitation of a Catholic Pope.
It could have been better (not with this Pope, perhaps) but it could have been much worse, too.
In the reports of the papal visit there is no trace of the social justice love-in in which Barry Boy had certainly hoped. The Vatican communique is very short, and gives great relevance to the US internal issues. Certainly pretty much the biggest relevance that can be expected in a diplomatic setting.
We do not know what was said in private, but this is perfectly irrelevant as nobody can have a conversation with the Bishop of Rome and go away with three intelligible thoughts in a row.
There were the inevitable photo-ops, too, but they won’t help Barry Boy much. He makes the impression that he is trying to shine out of the reflected light of the Enemies Of Christ’s Most Beloved Pontiff, which isn’t much of a messianic statement.
Nor will this, I think, be much of a media coup for Francis. He certainly prefers the cover of Rolling Stone, or anything remotely stinking of favela, than a duet in which he has – wisely, I think, for once – followed the counsel of his advisors, not to help Obama in his social-justice-cum-abortion-and-oppression-of-Christians crusade.
Pretty much of a non-event, then, from what I could read up to now.
And in the times in which we are living, every non-event can only be good news.
Slovakia has now decided to enshrine the only possible understanding of Marriage in their Constitution, following a broad agreement in Parliament.
When the measure is voted, it will mark another addition to those Countries refusing to give up to the pressure from UN and EU, and deciding than a bunch of perverts and their minions will not be allowed to “teach” them what is right or wrong.
I read the news in the same day in which Francis-The-Black-Shod received “punished with a baby”- Obama Bin Muslim, the worst enemy of Christianity the United States ever had.
The main issue of the talk will be, of course, social inequalities.
I see some magazine covers coming.
Congratulations to the people of Slovakia and their representatives for their Christian stance in front of bribery and/or bullying.
Another reason why the EU must die.
For the past few days I have been engaged in an e-mail conversation with officials from the Heritage of Pride parade, New York’s annual gay event; the dialogue has been cordial. I asked to join the parade under a banner that would read, “Straight is Great.” The purpose of my request was to see just how far they would go without forcing me to abide by their rules. It didn’t take long before they did.
Today, I informed Heritage of Pride officials that I objected to their rule requiring me to attend gay training sessions, or what they call “information” sessions. “I don’t agree with your rule,” I said. They responded by saying that attendance was “mandatory.”
The St. Patrick’s Day parade has mandatory rules, too. It bars groups representing their own cause from marching, which is why pro-life Catholics—not just gays—are barred from participating under their own banner. But only gays complain: they refuse to abide by the rules. Indeed, they went into federal court seeking to force a rule change. They lost. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that private parades have a First Amendment right to determine their own rules.
It is hypocritical for gay activists to complain about having to abide by the mandatory rules of the St. Patrick’s Day parade, and then inform me that I cannot march in their parade unless I respect their mandatory rules, rules that I reject.
Good luck to the Heritage of Pride participants. I may be watching it from afar, but I sure won’t be downing a Guinness afterwards.
This is what the Catholic activist Bill Donohue writes about his experience with the oh so inclusive fags in New York.
The double standard is astonishing, the hypocrisy stinks to heaven.
He has said everything already, so there’s not much to add.
You may want to renounce Guinness and the other Diageo beverages (Google will be your friend) for Lent, and give your preference to other products more often afterwards.
We are informed that more than 15,000 aborted and miscarried babies have been burned to produce energy .
The “Daily Homograph” very delicately also reports they were burned alongside other rubbish, thus making involuntarily clear what they think of the corpse of an aborted or miscarried baby.
The blood-chilling details are in the “Homograph” article, so if you want to have your stomach upset and your last meal isn’t recent you can read the rest there.
I merely notice that this is the country which, in a great leap “forward” toward Sodom, has just approved so-called homosexual “marriages”, less than a decade after approving homosexual “civil partnerships”.
How people does not see the link it’s beyond me. The contempt for God’s commandments must perforce translate in the pursue of every selfish interests at all costs; this will unavoidably lead both to the celebration of perversion and to the elimination of unwanted human beings. They are the two faces of the same coin, and a pretend sensitivity about the corpse of the baby one has just killed is not going to wash.
In fact, perhaps the most disgusting part of the story is the hypocrisy of those now saying burning dead children for heat is “unacceptable”. It is acceptable to kill an innocent unborn child, but it is not acceptable to dispose of the remains in a way that hurts the “sensitivity” of the public; sensitivity which , at least here in the UK, isn’t hurt by the killing of unborn babies at all.
I remember the opening show of the Olympic games, with that semi-communist exaltation of the NHS, apparently such a great conquest of humanity.
“Yes, ma’am, we have cremated the rests of your, erm, ah, well, I mean the “foetal remains”; can’t you feel the pleasant warmth around you?”
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…
View original post 261 more words
I had been alerted to the Italian version, but the excellent Rorate Caeli already has the English translation, so I will refer to it directly.
If you follow the link, you will notice that among the Cardinals there is a clear refusal of the Modernist measures, and of the obvious contempt of Christ, showed by Cardinal Kasper.
Among the Cardinals who have expressed themselves clearly – or brutally – against the measures proposed by Kasper, Giorgio Tosatti mentions not only those already gone public with their disagreement (to my knowledge Mueller, Caffarra and Burke), but also Brandmueller, Bagnasco, Sarah, Re, Piacenza, Tauran and Ruini. If we are to believe to cardinal Ruini, it’s 85% against, an dmany of the others “embarrassed”.
Note that some of the interventions are so explicit one struggles to believe they come from a Cardinal (hey: these the ones who gave us Big Problem in the first place), and some of them come from cardinals, like Re, who cannot be praised with having a sound conservative spirit. Also note cardinal re explicitly mentions the fact that expressing oneself against the measure may hinder one’s chance of becoming Cardinal, thus clearly stating what everyone knows: Kasper is nothing else than Francis’ longa manus.
My reading of the events is that it would appear that those mentioned believe in God, whilst Kasper and Francis either don’t, or do not believe in anything resembling the God of the Catholics. Because if they would, they would be terrified of playing fast and loose with the Truth and the Sacraments.
The resistance to the Francis-Kasper assault to the Sacraments is, certainly, good news. But I reflect that the opposition reported by Tosatti came from Cardinals, and the synod in October will see – as it was also on the latest occasion, though we are not told about them – the participation of Bishops,among whom there will be no lack of cheerleaders (who have lost their Catholic faith, all of them, no exception) ready to praise the direction whereto the “spirit” is leading the Church; as clearly proved by the many magazine covers, and the millions of twitter followers.
We can’t do much more than pray I am afraid, but at least we can try to be vocal about what is happening in our sphere of influence, so that those around us may be educated to sound Catholicism; which will be good even if this huge mess does not become reality.
The Faith is going to be severely tested in the months and years to come. Most of my readers belong, I want to hope, to those whose faith and loyalty to the Church of Christ is unshakable, but many around them will be made of a weaker stuff. It is for us to instruct, support, console and encourage them.
Because the local priest will very probably sing the praise of Francis whilst getting all excited about some young nun jumping on the stage like she is on cocaine.
As this Pontificate enters its second year a trait of Francis’ disquieting personality appears more and more evident: his dislike for good Catholics.
As it seems, there is almost no week in which Francis misses the occasion to put devout Catholics in a bad light. He seems, in fact, utterly unable to believe in the fundamental goodness of people behaving fundamentally well, and striving to do better.
Whether he compares them more or less ironically to “holy cards”, or criticises their “securities”, or lambasts their “hypocrisy”, or mocks their counting their rosaries – rosaries they have prayed for him; quite the gentleman, this one – or calls them all sort of names, or implies (this is just the last one) you have better cards by God if you are some kind of “outcast” (meaning: sodomite, trannie, drunkard, junkie: whatever is not all right in the eyes of real good Catholics) it is clear the man prefers to have you dirty rather than clean; because if you are dirty it allows him to feel good at his vicinity to you, but if you are clean you will actually expose Francis’ own dirtiness.
Let us be frank here: a shallow, vulgar man lacking both manners and spirituality, Francis would look very bad near any one of the good Catholics he so constantly criticises; but put him in the middle of homosexual priests and favela Trannies and he will breath the dirt with relish, and will be very proud of smelling like them.
And in fact, it seems to me the old Jorge Bergoglio is now having a very long field day, shooting at those good Catholics who – seeing in him, fundamentally, a phoney, and saying it; then good Catholics tend not to shut up – have criticised him during his time on the public stage as bishop, archbishop and Cardinal. Now that he is Pope, he ceaselessly hits them with his snide remarks about people who, whilst never called by name, show an uncanny resemblance with your typical…. good Catholic: people who know the Commandments, try to follow them, live orderly lives, rest in Christian Truth, and have granitic certainties about right and wrong. Which is how it is supposed to be.
A very telling sign of this is that Francis never says that, to make an example, to have certainty of the faith is good in itself. No, to him the problem lies in having the certainties. Nor does he say that many people are good Catholics who live saintly lives, whilst others mask their sinfulness under a thick veil of hypocrisy. It is evident from a now countless series of snide remarks that Francis does not believe that people looking fundamentally sound may really be sound Catholics, and that their exemplary behaviour may not hide anything else than.. a truly exemplary attitude. No, it is clear that to Francis you are either dirty, or you are a hypocrite.
It truly goes on and on and on. It is as if those good Catholics who have always pointed out to his shortcomings as a prelate should now be made to pay for what is not only their orthodoxy but also, very clearly, their being largely middle-class, a category Francis clearly looks at as the oppressor and enemy. And here we have it, our standard Bergoglio: “you who always looked down at me”, he seems to say out loud, “you with your faith, with your commandments, with your certainties, with your intact homes, with your prayerful and ordered lives: I do not believe in your authenticity, because I could never be like you. I despise your moral standards, that are clearly not mine; I despise your thinking yourselves good Catholics, and judging me unworthy of my habit. I will therefore bash you whilst I promote and protect homosexual priests and heretical Cardinals, and fight the “holy card world” in which you live in as hard as I can. I don’t care much for the good middle class Catholic. Give me the slum priest stinking of his own sin instead”.
This will not, obviously, be his real words. It can even be that he is not entirely aware of this constant war against bourgeois respectability he is constantly waging. Perhaps his parents brought with them from Piedmont a good dose of resentment for the middle class, and he ended up absorbing some of it. I come from Italy myself. We all know the type. There used to be a lot of them in the past. Again, not saying Bergoglio’s parents were that kind of people. But one observes, and wonders. Perhaps they weren’t, perhaps they were. Perhaps Bergoglio was ruined by the seminary; perhaps a tango-dancing bouncer was not entirely suited to the seminary anyway.
Perhaps; perhaps; perhaps…
What is clear, is that I cannot remember any Pope so constantly at war with good Catholics, as this one.
The latest initiative taken by Francis for Lent is certainly laudable. In Rome and elsewhere, a special effort will be made, keeping some churches open in the evening and providing for confession opportunities at that late hour. A beautiful way to remind the faithful of the Sacrament of Confession, and to encourage them to avail themselves of it in this Lenten time.
Unfortunately, this being Francis-The-Bishop-of-Rome the initiative is diluted by the usual, exaggerated expectation for mercy. Therefore, with one corner of his mouth Francis tells you that it is good to go to Confession, whilst with the other he implies that God's inexhaustible mercy doesn't make it necessary; because hey, if you have good will and follow your conscience you will be just fine.
In this, I notice once again the “layer Church” so evident in this year of Pontificate: one layer is the traditional Catholic teaching to which Francis must, being the Pope, pay some sort of lip service. The other layer is the new homemade religion Francis concocted for himself instead of providing himself with a solid Catholic education; this is the religion in which faith is not necessary for salvation because conscience saves, sodomite priests are not to be judged, God slaps one in the wrist at most, being a good Catholic who follows the rules makes one suspicious, and counting your rosaries makes one positively ridiculous, Neo-Pelagian and a lot of other things, none of them positive.
My suspicion is that the former layer comes mainly from his advisors, who suggest to him that he does something Catholic for a change; whilst the latter is obviously the fruit of Francis' decade-long neglect for basic Catholicism and its substitution for a vaguely resentful, and more than vaguely dirty, social gospel.
Francis wasn't born a genius, but like every Modernist he understands if he wants to spread his own gospel – the gospel that makes him so popular among people without the least intention of converting to Catholic values – he must also play the Catholic pope every now and then, and affirm today what he has happily denied yesterday. This latest Confession initiative is just the most recent example: conscience saves, but please go to confession, it's good for the blood pressure.
The antidote for Francis' poison is very simple: we must make an extra effort of learning of sound Catholic teaching; so that every time Francis speaks we may easily recognise what is legitimate Catholicism and what is homemade “Che” religion. It is not really difficult, because Francis' love for headlines and novelty will allow a properly instructed Catholic to almost instantly recognise those concept sounding “off”.
I can at least see no other way we can react to this than by making Francis' antics work for us – in that we use them to root ourselves deeper in the Truth – rather than against us.
Many others will be confused by Francis' Layer Church. But you, dear reader, who are more Catholic than that, will see the danger and instruct others in the proper way to eat it; discarding the mix of sugar and poison Francis has put on top of it; but for heaven's sake, without throwing away the entire cake.
As a Canonist, Cardinal Burke does not think that Cardinal Kasper’s idea of “playing with the very words of Christ Himself in the Gospel” and trying to square the circle to make everyone happy can work.
It is unfortunate that Kaspar’s words and speech are finding such resonance because obviously endorsed by the Bishop of Rome himself. The Cardinal does not say this, but it is obvious that three words from Francis would have stopped this madness in its tracks; not only this has not happened, but Francis is clearly the sponsor and promoter of Kasper’s initiative. You write it “Kasper”, but you pronounce it “Francis”.
It is also interesting that the Cardinal insists in letting us know that Kasper’s madness was not well received by many other Cardinals. Which in plain English means that Francis is openly endorsing a minority of subversive destroyers of the Faith, and many are the Cardinals – though we are not told how many – who choose to side with Christ instead. Let us pray that when the time of test comes, they will be able to stand their ground and become very vocal.
Francis is a vain man. I doubt he would court any controversy destined to make him seriously unpopular. I keep noticing how he avoids frontal attacks to the SSPX – Francis insults a lot; but the people he insults never have an identifiable face; they are more like shadows – well knowing the SSPX would make him look like a child of five playing with the Gospel in less time than you need to say “wheelchair”.
Coming back to Cardinal Burke, his words seem, to me, to contain a sort of hidden message along the lines of ” if anyone thought he can create a fait accompli through the leaking of the Cardinal’s speech, he should know that it will not work”.
I wish I could be as optimistic as that. I fear the worst. Not in the sense that the Bishop of Rome will officially declare Christ “intolerant” or “uncharitable”, but rather in the sense that he will say, with the intelligence and acumen we already know and love and the doctrinal profoundness that made him famous, “the principle remains intact, but do as you please with it whenever you feel you should be merciful; because hey, we live in the time of mercy now”.
I hope that as you read this a group of Cardinals is organising around Burke or Caffarra, determined not to shun any kind of scandal and controversy in order to avoid the Germans to rape Catholicism to save the proceeds from the Kirchensteuer. We have had enough of subversive puppets.
Whether it is a well founded hope, I prefer not to consider.
Am I the only one who thinks the exercise of the Extraordinary Synod was started by Francis precisely with the purpose of opening a way for public adulterers to receive communion, and the preparations are now well under way?
Let us see how the script would develop. First, the people decided to proceed to the Extraordinary Synod. Officially, in order to discuss “ways”. He leaves himself thirteen months’ time, so that the ground can be well prepared.
As always in these cases, he will not appear as the driving force of it all. Officially he is on the sides, an a “pastoral” but “concerned” way.
Meanwhile, his German demolition troops start making the lio Franciswishes so much. They make a democratic exercise of it, asking the turkey what they think of Thanksgiving. The turkeys answer they don’t like Thanksgiving at all, and think it unfair. The…
View original post 633 more words
You said another thing, which I also refer to in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium. You spoke of clericalism. It is one of the evils; it is one of the evils of the Church. But it is an “accessory” evil, because priests like the temptation of clericalizing the laity, but so many lay people, kneeling, asked to be clericalized, because it is more convenient, more convenient! And this is a two-way sin. We must overcome this temptation. The layman must be a layman, baptized, he has the strength that comes from his Baptism. Servant, but with his lay vocation, and this is not sold, it is not negotiated, it is not an accessory to the other … No. I am like this! Because it goes with the identity. In my homeland, I have heard this so many times: “You know, in my parish I have a great layman: this man knows how to organize … Eminence, why don’t we make him a deacon?” The immediate proposal of the priest is to clericalize. Let’s make this layman … And why? Because the deacon, the priest is more important than the layman? No! This is the mistake! Is he a good layman? Let him continue to be so and grow so, because it goes with the identity of Christian membership. For me, clericalism hinders the growth of the layman. However, keep present what I have said: it is an “accessory” temptation between the two. Because there wouldn’t be clericalism if there weren’t laymen who want to be clericalized. Is this clear? Therefore, I thank you for what you do. Harmony: this, also, is another harmony, because the function of the layman can’t be done by the priest, and the Holy Spirit is free: sometimes He inspires the priest to do something, at other times He inspires the layman. There is talk in the Pastoral Council. The Pastoral Councils are so important: a parish – and here I quote the Code of Canon Law – a parish that does not have a Pastoral Council and a Council of Economic Affairs, is not a good parish: it lacks life.
Pope Francis, Address to Media Association “Corallo”, 24 March 2014
The Year of The Lord 2014 is very young, and Pope Diana has already found a way to confuse and scandalise Catholics in that typical sly, slimy, Modernist, Jesuitical way of his. This time, the attack is directed at that miracle of Jesus called the “multiplication of the Fish and Loaves”.
For you Jesuit Popes out there: multiplication of loaves of bread, or of fishes, means that through a miracle of Jesus, the bread loaves and the fishes have been multiplied. So much so, in fact, that in the end there was enough to feed thousands, and to spare.
It doesn’t seem very complicated to me: there is a multiplication, and this multiplication is a miracle. You can’t do that. Jesus can. Anytime. Why do you believe that Jesus can multiply breads? Because you believe that Jesus is God. Why do you believe this particular…
View original post 1,196 more words
Sister Cristina Scoccia is now waiting for Pope Francis’ phone call.
This makes for an interesting situation: a Pope with a clear penchant for the stage and a nun with an obvious vocation for it. A great uproar caused in Italy – and elsewhere – by the antics of the latter as well as of the first.
If the Pope makes the call, it will be another sign of decay, as the TV fashions now positively steer the PR activity of the most staged pope ever, and we will be only left to wonder whether a duet with the bishop of Rome is the next big think (for a Tango is, I think, rather too late). Blessedly, the man is told to be tone deaf, which might help us on this.
If he does not call it will be a mild sign Francis has at least no intention of stooping as low as that; which might mean the bottom has been, after months of frantic search, possibly found in the end.
The similarities between the two cannot be denied, but one could also say Sister Cristina is the product of the age of Papa Francesco. The same shallowness, the same absence – or despise for – sacredness, the same abuse of populist slogans to please the crowd, the same addicted desire for popular approval, and most evidently the same osannahs from a world that cannot believe it has won so easily, as its support is sought by both with no regard for truth, sacredness, or dignity.
I do not know much of these TV programmes for the tattooed, jumping masses, but it would appear Sister Cristina might have embarked herself in a TV competition that might go on for months, making all but a caricature of her very job as a nun and making a caricature of nuns for months on end. I can imagine we will have further screaming sisters in front of the cameras, reminding one of young girls circa 1963, upon spotting the Beatles. Very edifying. The tattooed nation will approve unconditionally. Perhaps sister should try a small tattoo, too?
You would expect someone would go on the brakes here, and Sister Cristina’s superior would now order her to, after her moment of “glory”, go back to doing what she has taken a vow to do: be a religious sister. Not a big chance for that, unfortunately, as it appears the mother superior herself encouraged Sister Cristina to take part to the competition; a TV exercise which must be rather known among the sisters.
To think I thought they spent their evenings in meditation and prayer.
I have read a couple of times in the last weeks about the fact that Catholicism is supposed to be made “attractive” for non-Catholics.
I do not think this mentality wil ever work,and I do not think it is right, either.
Firstly, we must consider that Catholicism is fundamentally unattractive. Compared with the fluffy ideologies that are smuggled around and were always peddled in the past, it cannot be said that Catholicism – but for it, crucially, being the Truth – would be the way of choice for many of us. Protestants promise salvation just for believing in Jesus, and new age legends even do away with hell, or basically with anything that you don’t feel like doing. By contrast, Catholicism teaches you to be seriously scared – though in a reasonable way – that you may lose the way even after decades of trying to be the best Christian you can.
Fear and trembling on one side, fluffy conviction of one’s own saintliness on the other: in the marketing race for the most attractive package, Catholicism never stood a chance.
Secondly, I see in this desire of making things attractive the big potential for a watering down of the Truth, and in any way a fundamental dishonesty. If one wants to downplay the harsh news, one will end up attracting a crowd that never really signed for the programme, and he must not be surprised if they turn their back when they are told a couple of inconvenient truths about – say – contraception, divorce, or sodomy. They will also think that they have been lured into Catholicism with false pretences and misrepresentations, and I will not disagree with them. Even those who would accept the harsh truths in the end would have to reflect that they have been lured into them with the promise of candies, like children.
Thirdly, the Church has been stressing for the last 50 years the “joy” of Catholicism, as if those outside of it missed some very special entertainment; but she has never explained to non-Catholics how it is that walking on a busy street on a Sunday afternoon there is no way to immediately spot the Catholics, purely out of their oh so joyous countenance. This cheap marketing has not worked, and the Church trying to shape Herself according to the world has lost Her grip on the world She is supposed to fight against, and shape in the process.
I was five years old when my grandmother first put me in front of a Crucifix and told me unless I ask Jesus for forgiveness for my sins, I will go to hell. You might say it was a bit too much and too soon, and I would personally go at it differently. But you see, I still remember the episode. My grandmother was probably concerned for the religious education I would receive from my parents, but again I do not think confronting a five years old with the truths of life was very uncommon in her young days. Yes, I started to cry, and I am sure many a little child before me had the same reaction; but almost fifty years later, I cannot locate any other episode so decisive in putting into me some sound fear of the Lord.
The Truth must be said whole. Honesty commands that it be so, and reflection confirms that it cannot be any other way. Let the non-Catholic readers of this blog be shocked at first contact. Let them be angry at me if it disturbs their fluffy feelings. But the harsh message will stick, at least for a while, and will hopefully be buried somewhere in the reader’s consciousness; to be fished back, perhaps, in ten or thirty years’ time, when the person in question will finally have the serenity to recognise that what he had read in that strange blog, that seemed so “harsh” and “uncharitable” at the time, was actually the truth said whole.
But there is a last reason, why it is better to say the Truth whole. We really do not accomplish anything; not out of our autonomous will anyway. Grace works in us, and leads us to the Faith. There is no way any marketing of mine, shrewd as it may be, might ever achieve anything, but God’s grace will have caused it to happen. If this is so, and it is so, there can be no course of action more reasonable that to say the Truth whole, and to leave it to Jesus to let His Truth slowly work on those He has, from all eternity, decreed they should be influenced by it.
I have never noticed any “marketing” tendency of Jesus in the Gospels. Actually, it seems to me the contrary is the case. Whilst He revealed the Truth gradually to His Apostles, He was revealing a new religion, we aren’t; nor did he command to the Apostles that they evangelise people in installments. Yes, basic prudence will have to guide our actions, but it is my experience that adult people can bear some unpleasant news remarkably well. In the end, even five years old children cope well, too. And if it is a shock, it is a salutary one.
Say the Truth whole; in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time, but say it whole, trusting that your duty is done when the seed is planted. God’s grace will, if it was so decreed, do the rest in God’s own time.
These two delicate flowers have been just arrested for massively abusing “their” three children.
Yes, these are aren’t sisters, or cousins. I would say it is California, but this reality will become increasingly more common all over the West whilst Pope Francis, ever suspicious of everything looking like orthodoxy or a good living, tells us we must not look like saints in holy cards.
Well, these two dykes certainly don’t.
“The girl, who appeared to have suffered the most extreme abuse, was chained to the floor to prevent her from getting any food, they said”.
“[They had] “hardly eaten for months.”
[The girl looked] like a concentration camp victim.”
What a brave new world.
Dykes are allowed not only to keep their babies, but to adopt new ones. Then we complain such things happen. One truly understands how pedophile priests could be moved from one place to the other after some “training course”, and everyone thought it was all fine. As for the pedophile priests, there will be more and more of these cases in the years to come. Children will be subjected to the worst abuses in the worst cases, and will grow up emotionally maimed and with all sorts of dysfunctions in the less worst.
Political Correctness makes blind and stupid. These children are just three among very many who will pay the price.
It seems to me that here something utterly tragic is brewing. Let us think of the homosexual priests’ child abuse scandal. What has happened on that occasion? It happened that homosexuals were allowed to enter the Seminary and become priests in droves. Now, we must understand that there is a univocal (as opposed to biunivocal) correspondence here: whilst it cannot be said that the vast majority of homosexuals are pedophiles, it can comfortably be said that the vast majority of pedophiles are homosexual, as are…
View original post 618 more words
You might or might not know that in Italy a law aimed at ensuring that half of the members of Parliament are women has recently been canned. This PC monster may well rear its ugly head in the future, but for once common sense – helped by the secret ballot – has prevailed. There will, therefore, be no Panda Bear Reserves in the Italian Parliament, and a woman will have to be chosen for the job exactly as a man has to, at least as far as the legal position is concerned (there is at least one party who has a 50% female policy; last time I looked, this party had only 10% women among their activists; but hey, if the men of that party are such beta tools…. who am I to judge?).
The Bishop of Rome, Francis, was certainly thinking about it during one of his last bus rides, and reflecting on how he can show that he cares for women in a strictly PC manner.
Detto, fatto. The new commission against sexual abuse (this is what you do when you want to reduce bureaucracy: you create new commissions…) has, who could have thought it, 50% of women. That is, the members are eight, the lay”people” five, and of these five four are women. Therefore, women outnumber the men four to one among the lay-whatever, and are half of the full gremium. This is so gay, I can’t imagine the idea came from a heterosexual prelate.
In the meantime, laws against “homophobia” and “transphobia”, which are a real threat to the freedom of expression and of religion of sound Catholics, are advancing fast.
Francis does not care, as it is well-known that he is nobody to judge.
“In all the villages of Nigeria, there are women who have no education and girls who do not attend school. They can not read or write, but they have the morning after pill . When they are questioned, they know which pill they have when to take abort. How can that be? Who tells them that and gives them the morning after pill, pushing it into her hand? It is the western governmental and non-governmental organizations that impose their ideas on us. And these ‘values’ mean birth control. This is worth much money and effort from the West. And why do they do that? To ensure that our government gets international economic aid, they must accept this Western policy. But that is called coercion. A culture and a mentality is imposed that is not ours, for we Nigerians not despise life.” They attempt this by way of an ideological indoctrination but specifically from the outside to manipulate the minds of the people in Nigeria.
These words are from Ignatius Kaigama, the Archbishop of Jos and President of the Nigerian Bishops’ Conference. Nigeria is the Country where Boko Haram massacres Christians like there’s no tomorrow – I have written here, where I also linked to Andrew Klavan’s always useful “sensitivity training”, “how to behave during an Islamic massacre” – but where the West seems most concerned with letting abortion pills reach every freaking village, and screeching like an offended Trannie whenever Christian legislation is enacted.
The Archbishop explains very clearly what the deal is: if you want to have the help to alleviate your economic misery, you will have to teach your girls the anti-values of the West. If you are Christian, you must be bad. Uganda received the same treatment.
Alas, someone should tell the Archbishop that he is “obsessing” about both homosexuality and abortion; that getting “out there” and reeking of Western rot is absolutely fundamental, particularly if the sheep in the “outskirts” do the same; that in the new “time of mercy” new accents must be set; that he should, erm, (cough), always consider the “individual circumstances”; and that if sodomites “search the Lord” and “have good will”, who is he to judge?
Perhaps the Archbishop will be visited by Father Volpi after the latter’s current demolition project has been brought to an end?
You never know. The time of mercy looks like a time of bullying of everything orthodox indeed.
then this is inappropriate, too
I do not know the stupid details of this certainly stupid TV transmission. What I see:
1) tattooed people;
2) people making the horns
3) A nun making the horns
4) Other nuns behaving like teenies considered stupid by her own classmates.
5) A fully secular song, that no amount of “but she means to give everything to God” can hide. With this mentality, Sister could have sung “like a virgin”.
6) “Ho un dono, ve lo dono”, my foot. You're a nun, Sister. You are supposed to spend your time praying and helping, not jumping around like you're on cocaine.
7) “Non capisco piu' niente”, says Raffaella Carra', “I can't understand anything anymore”. She obviously can't understand (I mean, she says so) how a nun can behave in that way. She is not the only one.
This is utterly, utterly inappropriate. This is not a nun singing Schubert's “Ave Maria”. This here is, or appears to be, fully invested in the world; choking full of its vanity and stupidity in its most vain, and most stupid form.
Like Francis, she chooses popularity. The sign of the horns, though certainly not understood in all its gravity, is a massive giveaway of this desire to be like the ones of the other side of the nunnery; to be liked by them, to share their values, their songs, their gestures; to be, in a word, one of them.
The way she jumps around is probably the most embarrassing thing of them all, or at least it is the biggest giveaway.
Nothing against priests or nuns who sing. By all means, give us beautiful sacred music, make us feel inspired. Sell millions of copies. Make World Catholicism Tours. “Nuns For Unborn Babies”, that would be a good title for a sacred song collection. One is for me.
But in everything, never forget that you are a priest, a nun, a religious sister; that your life has been given to Christ; that this giggling and screaming and jumping around is utterly inappropriate for nuns; and I am not talking only of the one on stage here, but of the other screaming girlies, too.
The world saw, and laughed. It laughed in the same way as he laughs when Francis dons the clown's nose. It's the condescending smile of victory.
“Look, a nun makes an ass of herself. It's soooo funny”.
Sister Christina should reflect long and hard on her vocation.
What's next? A nun twerking to give witness of the beauty of creation?
“I don't understand anything anymore”, says Raffaella Carra'.
The only sensible words in the eight minutes of the video.
And it came to pass Bishop Gaenswein allowed the world to know the Pontiff Emeritus had written a sort of commentary of the draft of the Papal interview with Civilta’ Cattolica, the 12,000 word exercise due to the fact that Bishop Francis does not like giving interviews.
This interview was scandalous enough. But it could be that without Benedict’s notes (which might have led to adjustments in the end) it could have been even worse.
Soon thereafter, Francis writes a long letter to Scalfari, even more scandalous than the interview to Civilta’ Cattolica, and inter alia lets the first bomb about “conscience” and “salvation for atheists” explode. Shortly after the letter, he doubles with the notorious interview, which was more a carpet bombing in Dresden style.
Knowing what we know now, we can safely conclude as follows:
1) Benedict must have received a draft of the interview already checked by Francis, then elementary courtesy demands no other behaviour. You don’t ask a Pontiff Emeritus to OK a draft you have not checked for accuracy first. He is not your under-under assistant just come out of the Seminary. Francis, then, does receive drafts, and he does read them.
2) Benedict does not receive, as far as we know – but it would be strange if Gaenswein would just keep this covered – neither the draft of the original letter to Scalfari, nor the draft of the Scalfari interview. Am I bad in thinking Francis feared he would receive not four, but fourteen pages of comment? Why, otherwise, would one avail oneself of the services of a fine theologian in the first occasion, but not in the second and the third?
3) How can even the blindest Pollyannas now declare that the Pope does not receive and reads drafts of interviews? Or that he is so reckless that he gives them green light for publication without even reading them? After we know he asked the draft of the Civilta’ Cattolica interview to be read by the Pontiff Emeritus? Really?
Just three thoughts, really. But I wanted to share them. We should not forget old scandals just because we are confronted with ever new ones.
“St. Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time … The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong.”
Pope Francis, “12,000 words interview”, Civilta’ Cattolica/America Magazine, 2013.
“Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that … dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.”
Pope St Pius X, “Oath against Modernism”, 1910.